User talk:Retired25072024

Welcome!

Hello, HazzelDazzleDoDah, 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 Richmond, North Yorkshire 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 Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Joyous! Noise! 15:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joyous,

Could you take out the inaccurate information I tried to rectify? Despite it having a link it also violates the rules as it doesn't provide evidence of it's claim. It simple links to another Wikipedia article. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't source my information as I got it from my archeologicaist brother. His name is James Brightman, you may have seen him of channel 4's Great British Dig. As this is the case it's probably best just to remove the current inaccuracies? HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond

The two cites I have given are perfectly reliable and acceptable (see WP:RS). The statement that I couldn't source my information as I got it from my archeologicaist brother is Original Research and is not permitted. If you need help or advice, then just ask, but let's not get into an edit war, please. Thanks. The joy of all things (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah don't worry I've found sources HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable ones? The joy of all things (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - I said earlier - the sources I used are reliable, published sources who are both authorities on the history of place names. Albert Hugh Smith "was a scholar of Old English and Scandinavian languages and played a major part in the study and publication of English place-names". You cannot use references from within Wikipedia as this contravenes WP:CIRCULAR. You are now crossing the line into vandalising the article, please stop and revert your edits. Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"BEACHY HEAD is an example of a cape getting a French name. Other French names are BLANCHLAND, GROSMONT, KIRMOND, MALPAS, MONTACUTE, MOUNTSORREL, PLESHEY, RICHMOND, most, if not all, transplanted. FOUNTAINS was named from its springs, and RIEVAULX is a translation of Ryedale. Interesting are DIEULACRES,"

That is your first source HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say named after? Taken from French, sure. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your second source I can only rerify at a library, so that will take longer to check. Although I suspect a similar outcome. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to provide the paragraph that is relevant or are we going to long this out. I'm a student at Durham university so it's no inconvenience to me. Your choice. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You do not seem to understand. I have provided two reliable sources as per Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS. You have only provided circular references to Wikipedia to cite your claims WP:CIRCULAR. There is no reason to remove my cited sources when they are applicable, and I have explained myself several times. The section about French names (Beachy Head etc) makes no senses in this context as you are removing cited and supported statements. So far, besides myself, three other editors have reverted your edits. Heed their advice and think about your edits, please. The joy of all things (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable is not the same as relevant...please provide the

passages you are referring to in your sources. Otherwise I will continue to remove your edit. Multiple people believing something false is far from uncommon, let's not go the peer pressure route. I'm not interested in being right, only getting it right. I don't care for an edit war or whatever you think is going on here. Please do show me what context you think is important so I can understand. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming I was vandalising the article because you are so certain you are correct without actually showing any evidence is a bit inflammatory don't you think? I don't know you, I don't care what you think of me, nor do I care for your baseless attempts at intimidation. This isn't personal to me, I hope you can say the same. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was correct. I have provided reliable sources to state that the name of Richmond stems from a place-name in France/Normandy. That's it. You don't need to remove it. The two sources are both recognised as authorities on place-names. You have been reverted four times, by four different editors. Because you repeatedly remove the text and don't provide a sound rationale for doing so, that is vandalising the article. Earlier you state that That is your first source; have you researched "North Riding Place Names" by A. H. Smith? It states quite specifically

“

The site of Richmond was called Hindrelac in DE and Hindeslak in 1184 RichReg 84 (a digest of DB). The elements of this name are not clear from the scanty material. After the Conquest Earl Alan considered the fine strategic importance of the place and built himself a castle which he called Richemund(e) (1108-14 YCh 25, C. 1130 SD, c. 1155 BM et passim, Rich' unt 1176 et passim P, etc.) on the top of lofty precipice overlooking the Swale R. The name was probably transferred from some well-known site in France where there are many examples of the name. Here it means 'strong hill,' and for this meaning of OFr .--iche v. Godefroy s.v.

”

Just because you think it is wrong, does not mean you are right either. But we are driven by our sources. Plenty of which state the same thing; that the name of Richmond derives from a place name in France. So why can we not say that? The point here, is that I have provided sources who state the derivation of the name. You have not provided any sources, other than yourself and your brother, to refute those claims.

Also note that I have not reverted you, as I do not want to breach the WP:BRD and WP:3RR rules. The joy of all things (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"probably" is not reliable thought is it? HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it state the specific Richemont HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not trying to wind you up, I don't know how to teach you critical thinking skills. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also knowingly publising something you knowingly don't know to be correct is deplorable. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are contributing to ignoranc, whether you mean to or not. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I truly appreciate your time but I don't believe we're able to resolve this. There's some basic fundamental thinking skills you need to acquire and we clearly don't align on academic integrity. You may also wish to look up proof of burden. I don't need to prove you're wrong, you need to prove you're right. Which you haven't. You have followed the rules, absolutely you are correct in that sense, but that isn't what I'm concerned with. HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOPA. You have stated things here about me which are very rude. Please do not engage in personal attacks. Thank you. The joy of all things (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VViking_TalkEdits 15:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather confused if Wikipedia is for accurate information or false information posted in accordance to the rules? HazzelDazzleDoDah (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is for reliably sourced information added to articles according to our policies, which means that you do not insult other editors as you did here, and you do not threaten to keep reverting other editors' edits without discussing them as you did here.

As noted below, I have blocked you from editing just that article for three days to give you an incentive to go on the article's talk page and politely make your case for why you're right, using reliable sources. Several people at the edit warring noticeboard supported that outcome. I am being lenient with you because you just created your account. If this conduct continues after the block expires, you may be blocked from the whole site indefinitely. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]