User talk:Horatius At The Bridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moving forwards

The good news is you had a friendly close and therefore no block on record. However this is probation if I read the summary aright and if there is any repeat it will be a six month block and you would have to appeal. So I suggest you return to editing but make the following suggestions:

1. Voluntary restrict yourself to 1RR even if you think its vandalism; if this arises ping me and I will get involved and advise
2. If anyone templates you on the talk page for anything consult with me before responding
3. Avoid any comments on the motivations or behaviour of any other editor - if conflict arises then again ping me

I will do my best to keep my eye on edits but ideally I won't have to do anything! Easily tbe best form of mentoring. My motivation by the way is not pity, I genuinely think we need to find ways to bring more editors on board who are knowledgeable on sources and prepared to put the work in to improve things. -----Snowded ^TALK 12:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Will do my friend, you can relax and spend your wikitime productively without worrying about my scrapes - I'm a changed man (or will be if they process my username change ) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Account renamed

As you will have seen, I have renamed this account from "Sirjohnperrot" to "Horatius At The Bridge", as you requested. JBW (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm obliged. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Ahah, we christen thee Horatius At The Bridge :) GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Thomas David has been accepted

William Thomas David, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 15:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Great House (Laugharne) has been accepted

Great House (Laugharne), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification: User:Horatius At The Bridge/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Horatius At The Bridge/sandbox. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 10:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Island House (Laugharne) has been accepted

Island House (Laugharne), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Fiddle Faddle 13:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

moving

Wikipedia:Moving a page tells you probably more than you ever wanted. When you mess up probably only an admin can help. I've made some pretty big SNAFUs with moving, and I have to ask for help I'm not an admin and choose never to be one! Fiddle Faddle 13:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and when creating new pages (yes, even by moving) I sometimes forget to sort out some links to them. I linked the Laugharne house from Island House, but the rest is over to you. Fiddle Faddle 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, I have linked it to the Laugharne page and will brace myself for the torrent of silence that will no doubt ensue - provided there are no obvious clangers for the community to sink their teeth into  ;-) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Sirjohnperrot (now Horatius At The Bridge) and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Gruffydd ap Rhys did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Caleb and Wikidata

Click the Wikidata link in the left hand margin of Caleb and you may be pleasantly surprised. Wikidata is really hard to edit well. I'm learning slowly.

What I know is to connect wikipedia articles and wikidata entries Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, it's good to know someone else before me thought Caleb's contribution to the development of early twentieth century education was worthy of a mention in Wiki ;)Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we may have drawn a line under prior difficulties

I think you have achieved what a number of people thought would be hard. I think you deserve a pat on the back. And I know that sounds patronising, but there is no patronising intent here.

Life is so much better without displeasing disagreement. Finding ways to flag disagreement without the typed word instigating a fight is an acquired skill. I disagree with many people on many things. The trick is only being active in disagreement if it matters, and then with true courtesy, courtesy that is meant, not faked.

Keep it up, and never look back. Fiddle Faddle 17:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Tim Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Horatius At The Bridge, I think it is quite reasonable to have excised the material that you have. If anyone really wants it then they may search the page history. Now you have done that may I suggest you set up a talk page archival scheme. You can grab (and tailor for your use) the scheme I use at the head of mine with pleasure. It creates new archives once an individual archive is the size you specify Fiddle Faddle 08:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Archive bot added as recommended - thanks again Tim Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Horatius At The Bridge, if you examine my talk page again there is a little box which also shows the archived links. Obviously this will be empty when you add it Fiddle Faddle 12:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I use this:

<!-- Start of archiving box with list of archives -->
{{archives|search=yes|bot= ‎Lowercase sigmabot III|age=7|auto=short}}
<!-- End of archiving box with list of archives -->

I didn't apply it to your page. Not my property. I did reset the archive counter to 1 in the code you added. Age=7 - seven days. Lord knows what 'short' means Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Extra syntax applied with due trepidation, thanks Tim - please do correct as necessary if appropriate Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure whether you have to click the red "Create" or not. We'll know after tonight's archive run. On mine it created archive pages automagically. Sit on your hands until tomorrow and we'll probably find out Fiddle Faddle 12:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits to cide made. Have look using diffs Fiddle Faddle 12:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, not a lot happened last night to archive it. Let's leave it overnight again before wondering. Sometimes the bot takes a while to get to new talk page archive requests Fiddle Faddle 05:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Yay! It got archived!!. Not sure why the welcome message didn't go as well, but hey, who can say? Fiddle Faddle 06:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Well done Tim, I suppose one section at least needs to remain as the rest wither away - my contribution FWIW is intended for other pages anyway. I suppose a place to get templated on is required though - obviously prefer the green ones though :-) Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Horatius At The Bridge, I don't anticipate you will achieve any more brown templates, all by dint of careful work and holding one's peace.

AFC green ones are easy to achieve Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like archiving is now successful

The small change I made at the head of the page 'released' the welcome message. Archives sort by order archived, so it had added itslef to the foot. Fiddle Faddle 07:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

this page could end up with me as the Cheshire Cat - only the grin left behind Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

That is not a bad thing. I get a lot on my own because I am very active at Articles for Creation. Less publicly active editors should get very little talk as they ply their hobby. Fiddle Faddle 08:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pahonia on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Nur-Sultan on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Revert

Hi - I reverted your rename at Wars of the Three Kingdoms. There was no consensus for the move - a discussion from several years ago, in which a specific new name was never proposed, is not sufficient justification for such a move. There's nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD, naturally, but your change has now been contests - please don't reinstate it, if you want to pursue this you will need to form a consensus via discussion, as outlined at WP:RM. I've put a note explaining this on the article talk page, and will be happy to discuss this with you there. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 14:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I do think a consensus that the name was unsuitable was reached and there was also support for it to be changed at that time with a specific suggestion for the title. There were no subsequent valid objections made to the proposal as far as I can see and the passage of time does not seem to be relevant to the substantive points raised. I see now that it is a potentially controversial edit and have used the appropriate template as perWP:RM as you suggested. I agree that the definite article should not be included. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Talking Wars

Really pleased to see you've received some good guidance from Timtrent. Most of us have felt it difficult to step back at one time or another when something we feel strongly about doesn't succeed in getting consensus support. Although challenging to do, it really is best to move on to other editing as soon as it becomes clear the way the discussion is going. In the time spent arguing about one edit, 100 other less-contentious improvements could be made. I'm certain you have the ability to become a respected Wikipedia editor, and would like to see that happen. If I can offer some unsolicited advice, it would be to keep away for now from making potentially high-profile edits such as page moves, and concentrate on content improvement. If anyone reverts, don't re-revert but take it straight to the talk page to see what others think. And once there, seek advice before rather than after getting personally attached to any particular edit.

Wikipedia is a strange place: there are a huge number of policies, guidelines and unwritten rules, and a second opinion can often be useful. Like you, I'm a UK editor and would be very happy to help if you'd like to post on my talk page. I'll never criticise an editor who innocently does something the 'wrong' way just because they've no idea yet what the 'right' way is supposed to be. I've done that myself many times. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, good advice is always welcome and please be assured I do not intend to offend or irritate anyone. If I inadvertently do so it is often at the cost of the merits of my attempted changes being lost. "Experience is what we call our mistakes" my old professor used to say - and I am very experienced ;-) I hope though that I already am a respected editor after over 1000 edits in recent years including several new articles. That achievement is important to me given the many benefits of the WP project. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your reply, and wish you all the best for Christmas. You might even encourage me to start contibuting to WikiTree, where I have an account but haven't yet done much with it. I very much like their approach which seems similar to Wikipedia, with a focus on open collaboration and proper reliable sources. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Thenightaway (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You've violated 3RR. Self-revert immediately and stop edit-warring the Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan to whitewash the page. Thenightaway (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism needs to be removed and your warnings are inappropriate. You have consistently failed to engage in a constructive approach when I raised the issue on the Talkpage. Even resorting to hiding the suspect material under another heading when restoring it. Your understanding of RS is also very poor and you even fail to notice when the subject of this article is not even referenced in them. I do have a conflict of interest as a City supporter and will now have to leave it others to deal with this issue.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You're brazenly lying about sources not explicitly mentioning the subject of the article (either you've not read the sources in question or you have and are lying about their content), and you have at no point pointed to a single inaccuracy in any of the multiple reliable sources. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Your claims about not engaging you constructively on the talk page is yet another lie: I have repeatedly asked you to point to specific errors in the multiple sources that you keep deleting and you refuse to do so. Thenightaway (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about you on the Administrators's noticeboard for edit-warring: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Thenightaway (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

BLPN

Hi Horatius At The Bridge,

I have now mentioned the dispute at WP:BLPN to obtain the opinion of experienced uninvolved editors.

Concerns about canvassing have been voiced; I encourage you to read the policy about it and to be transparent about when and where you invite others to the discussion. For example, when I notified the BLP noticeboard, I also noted this in the affected discussion and now even on the talk page of the two discussion participants.

I have a feeling you might have to add a similar note to the discussion too. Please do so then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have removed the request for other editors to replace me on the external site and will add a general invitation to the pages here as you advise. Please let me know if there are other steps I can take to ensure discussion is fair and transparent.

Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Because of Wikipedia's policy against outing, the "external site" you refer to may currently not be referred to by other Wikipedians, as you have not disclosed the connection to the "external site" on Wikipedia. However, if you have engaged in off-wiki canvassing, that's a problem, and you should perhaps disclose it by saying, in the affected discussion at Talk:Mansour_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan#Controversy_Section, what you did. This would convert stealthy off-wiki canvassing into something that can be properly evaluated and discussed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The forum was linked by @nightaway and then redacted (not sure by who.) There was no question of canvassing, I said that I was conflicted and other experienced wiki editors were welcome to take over, this part was then removed following your comment so the post now reads as below.

https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/threads/man-city-wikipedia-entry-under-attack.362806/#post-16887643 Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I had reported the issue to the oversighters and it was removed after the report because it wasn't publicly discussable information at the time. It became publicly discussable with your 19:22, 18 February 2024 message; thank you for the transparency. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)