User talk:Iamdmonah

Archiving

Removing of all the criticism is not archiving. Besides, it will stay visible in the history of this page. The Banner talk 13:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes.... what is your point? I am fully aware it's still visible in the history. I'm just cleaning the place up.

Iamdmonah (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you have more productive things to do than jump on me for something so small. Its completely unnecessary. I haven't done anything wrong. I will ask you for a second time to stop contacting me unnecessarily. Iamdmonah (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am just informing you about more mistakes you are making. But I can help you with a bot that can do the archiving automatically for you. The Banner talk 13:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I seemed aggressive to you. Yes, a bot probably could help. Iamdmonah (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

See: User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis (and you can spy on my talkpage how I have done it). The settings is in hours, so my 672 activates the bot to archive discussions after 28 days after the last edit in a discussion.The Banner talk 15:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a great help.

Iamdmonah (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) You can also do it as a cut-and-paste from your talk page (or a historical version of your talk page) to an archive page you create, no bot needed. That's how I do mine. The instructions are at Help:Archiving a talk page. Let me know if you'd like help (you can reply here - I'm keeping your talk page on my watchlist for a while longer, as I do with people I welcome).

By the way, on talk pages we indent one step more than the post we're replying to, either with a colon or an asterisk; if you reply to this post, you should begin yours with two colons (::). It makes it much easier to keep track of who's replying to whom. Check out WP:TALK for all the details. Also, if you're wondering why your signature comes out in a different font, it's because you're putting a space before it on a new line; that changes the formatting. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thank you both. This will be very helpful to me. Iamdmonah (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Editor subpages

Please do not edit the subpages of other editors. Going into my contributions to find a subpage work in progress I'm currently doing and making edits including adding inline tags to it is not an acceptable action for any editor to do to another.

One reason for subpages is for editors to undertake work in progresses without disrupting the actual article especially when it involves large scale alterations.

So please do not edit my subpage again. You can view but not edit. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I didn't understand the purpose of a sub page. Iamdmonah (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

Please state only the info that is actually in the given source. You are still making too many mistakes. This is an encyclopedia, not a creative novel. The Banner talk 18:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

What? The source clearly stated that Imar and his sons took refuge on the Island. What is the problem? Iamdmonah (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

You gave names that were not in the sourced you used to cover the information. The Banner talk 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

This conflict has been long resolved. No need to continue. Iamdmonah (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I did answer your question. I had missed that one. The Banner talk 14:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Arras (1640)

I have a major concern about your article Siege of Arras (1640). I do not feel the need to correct the typos, but the way you rewrote the only source is a deep worry. Just editing some words here and there is not "retelling the story in your own words" as is required. The Banner talk 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Well I certainly made an effort to write it in my own words. Obviously having only one source makes it harder but I can try make some improvements, if necessary you can rewrite it yourself if you want. All the information is there, there is not many different ways I can write it. Iamdmonah (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have re-worded it to some extent but yes, it probably still needs more work. Again, feel free to re-word it yourself if you want. There are not many sources on this topic but more sources will help. Iamdmonah (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You can even question the notability of this short siege. Deciding what is notable and what is not notable can be very helpful. The Banner talk 14:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A short siege? That makes no sense. A siege can last only a day. And I personally think this is a notable siege– in fact, as I mentioned in the article, it was seen as quite an important event. Its not up to you to decide whether or not it is notable or not. Iamdmonah (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy / Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone

To summarize it: Revert edits based on creativity but not on the source given. That source just points to a note, not the info supposed to be covered. The Banner talk 23:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean. All the information I have added comes from the source I had given. But thank you for telling me. Also, can be careful as to what you are reverting. In the process of removing my edits, you also reverted an perfectly fine edit I made almost two months ago, and also a minor edit by another user. Iamdmonah (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Competence is Required. I seems that you added a "source" without even knowing what it was. So in effect you gave a link to source three. I hope that that was not what you intended. You must seriously up your game and be more accurate. The Banner talk 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Signing posts

You used to be good at signing posts; why did you stop? [1] [2] [3] [4]. I should mention that {{ping}} doesn't work if you don't sign the post (even if you go back and sign it later). Scolaire (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies. It is a strange thing, before when I had discussions on talk pages my contributions seemed to sign themselves automatically, even without the use of a bot, but that seems to have since stopped. So I now must manually put these (~~~~) at the end of my posts, but since I am not used to doing that, I often forget to do so. Something I must remember. Thanks for the heads up. Iamdmonah (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a squiggly thing above the editing box (third after Bold and Italic). It will add your signature automatically. Scolaire (talk) 12:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have it now. Very helpful. Thanks for this Scolaire. Iamdmonah (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for creating the article on the Dursey massacre. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Moira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moira.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Brian Boru again

Please make sure that the sources that you give indeed back up the claims you use it for. A source with a content "Annals of Inisfallen" is utterly useless. You should know this by now. The Banner talk 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I was not the one who produced that source for the article. I grabbed it from the re-use section and simply added it to the piece of information I was writing because, that is where the information comes from– the Annals of Inisfallen. So if there is a problem with the source, take it up with the other editor who added it, not me. Secondly, I don't really see much of a problem with the source anyway. When it comes to sourcing things like the Annals, how much more specific can you get? It's not as if there is page numbers or anything. You are back with your constant removing of my edits for rather silly reasons. And yet again, you have not pointed out what exactly is the problem, you just said there was a problem with no detail whatsoever. Iamdmonah (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

So you never looked at the source? That is a serious problem...

To be more precise: you just picked a rather random source, never checked it and added it to the article. Effectively falsifying it. The Banner talk 15:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And what is your proof that I never looked at the source, exactly?..... And what did I say that made it seem like I didn't check the source?... I most certainly did look at the source and the information was there. If you want you can even check the page Battle of Cathair Cuain (which I was writing about on Brian Boru) clearly displays the Annals of Inisfallen as a source.... along with other sources including the Annals of the Four Masters. And if you somehow want to claim that both myself and the editors of the Battle of Cathair Cuain are wrong about the Annals of Inisfallen saying this, then a LOT of the article Brian Boru is up to question considering other editors made several edits using the exact same source I did: The Annals of Inisfallen. And yet, you haven't questioned the other editors who made edits using the Annals of the Inifallen as a source, only me? I believe this counts as assuming bad faith..... I would also suggest you take a look at other Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Content removal and Wikipedia:Editing policies. Now, are we done, and can I return my edits to the page? Iamdmonah (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The sheer fact that the "source" was sourcing nothing. As stated before: you have to up your game and come up with real sources. But as usual, you put the blame on other to hide your own dodgy work. You and only you are responsible for your work. Never take a source for granted and check it before (re)using it. The Banner talk 16:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And as evidence of looking at the source, you give a link to a non-existing article? Be accurate, please. The Banner talk 17:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"The "source" was sourcing nothing"– what are you talking about? "As usual, you put the blame on other(s)"– assuming bad faith yet again. "Never take a source for granted and check it before (re)using it"– I have already explained that I did check the source.

I am well capable of holding myself responsible for my mistakes (and you should known since the vast majority of accusations against me are by you). And I'm going to let you away with blatantly ignoring my question as to why I am the only editor being nabbed for using this source. And I'm also going to let you away with my question as to why only my information is deemed wrong when much of the rest of the article is written using the same source (which you again ignored). I just want to know can I restore my edits since you haven't offered a solid reason as to why I can't yet, because I do not want to get into an edit war.

Iamdmonah (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Now, as I look back now on the changes I made on Brian Boru which brought about this discussion, I realise I did not even change the text in terms of adding or removing information; I simply reorganised the existing text so the events listed are in the correct chronological order. Therefore, I did not even need to add in that source, so this conversation is pointless. We can simply restore my edits and remove the source, and end it there, or continue with this discussion for absolutely no reason whatsoever, which I think you will find is a waste of both time and energy for the two of us.

WP:CIR. The Banner talk 18:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

And yes, you used a source with as only content "Annals of Inisfallen". Just three words pointing at nothing. And the other source you used, just pointed to https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/encyclopedia-of-the-medieval-chronicle/*-SIM_00179. The relevant content: 11th-14th century. Ireland. Monastic annals in Latin and Irish: like almost all the Irish annals, Latin predominates in the early centuries but by the early 10th century (at the latest) the situation has been reversed, with most entries being in Irish from there on. They take their name from a lake-island monastery near Killarney, in Kerry, and have the advantage of a modern edition (of 1951) and an early manuscript (of the 11th century). The latter (Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B. 503) is thus of great palaeographical interest (a facsimile was published at Dublin in 1933).. So again, nothing that backs up the info you tried to source. The Banner talk 19:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You are making this more difficult for us both. An alternative I propose is that I use another source for the information, or go with my previous proposal of just removing the source altogether as it was unnecessary on my part. Alas, since you evidently will not give up so easily I will try to find the necessary link that proves I researched the source before using it. Iamdmonah (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You are making it more difficult for yourself. I am not responsible for the quality of your edits. But I do feel a - shared - responsibility towards the quality of the encyclopedia. And as long as your edits are sup-par, I will keep pointing on the lack of quality. The Banner talk 19:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I respect your dedication to the maintenance of the site but I was just questioning why I am always the subject of such criticism despite in my view, my work being to the same standard as other editors and your apparent tendency to hold me responsible for mistakes made by other editors. I know you will disagree with my view, but I want you to understand my POV and why I, in your view, seem to claim I didn't make any mistakes. Anyway, can we please restore my edits. I can add a new source, or remove the previous source I added. And yes, in future, I will try to be less vague with my sourcing and provide specific references. I have learned my lesson, I just want my edits restored and this long, exhaustive and in my view pointless discussion to be over. Iamdmonah (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I do not agree with diminishing the quality of the article Brian Boru. And it is your own lack of quality that makes me itchy for your edits. But be happy, I only have 32610 articles on my watchlist. If you work outside that, I do not see your edits. The Banner talk 20:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Putting events listed in that section of the article in the correct chronological order is certainly not diminishing the quality of the article; if anything, it is improving it. Yes, the sourcing could have been better. But now I am presenting you with the opportunity to allow me to improve that article with better sourcing. Surely, you will not prevent another editor from attempting to improve an article. I'm asking you to allow me to restore my edits. It is a simple yes-or-no question, to which I hope you provide an answer. We both have better things to be doing, I'm sure you would rather be tending to your 32,610 articles on your watch list than spend an entire day deal with an editor making very minor infringements. So please, just answer the question and we can end this. Iamdmonah (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

You clearly did not get the point yet. Again: you edits are often useless. In other cases, they are unreliable due to the way you source them. You have had a case filed against you for gross incompetence. You came off with a warning to up your game and focus on content. Not this whining game. The Banner talk 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I do get the point. My edits are often useless, poorly sourced or unreliable, I am incompetent et cetera et cetera. Yet despite the latter accusation being against me, you rather ironically still fail to answer a simple yes or no question. I understand your concerns, and I have heeded your advice. My "whining game" does not need to continue; you can just allow me to fix my mistakes and I will be on my way. Iamdmonah (talk) 22:25, 16 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:53, 23 November 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) 01:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)