Jump to content

User talk:Wade991

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Hello, Wade991, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 75th Ranger Regiment, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. - wolf 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: What I edited was a continuation of the existing paragraph. It comes directly from the US military's website, as does the pre-existing origin section. Considering I did not see either paragraph before or after sourced, I am not sure why my addition was reverted. It should be added back in as the existing paragraphs do not make sense as the paragraph immediately following references the Civil War as if it was just mentioned. Wade991 (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]

There is process here called WP:BRD: you

  • Boldly made an edit. It was
  • Reverted. If you disagree, you then
  • Discuss it - on the article talk page. Not your user talk page or my user talk page. You also don't just go an revert again, as that is the first step in an edit war.

Go to the article talk page and explain why you believe your edit improves the article. And remember to focus on WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. - wolf 00:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: WP:DRNC You have not provided a reason for your second edit. Provide a reason for reverting my edit and if I disagree we can then take it to the tp. Please read WP:BRD_misuse. If you choose not to discuss it, then you are being a edit ninja and I will have to add the edit back. Wade991 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested in playing games with mew users who think the rules don't apply to them. I explained my revert. You should've gone to the article talk page - then - and started a discussion. The WP:ONUS is on those seeking to add content, not remove it. Yet, you instead reverted your edit back in with no explanation, not even an edit summary.
Discussion, especially during content disputes, is not an option. For some reason, you decide to post your ranting demands on my user talk page. I oblige you however, insofar that that I explained to you what you needed to do, where you needed to do it and why you need to. And yet, here you are again, pinging me to your user talk page now, with more demands and threats to disrupt that article, to go along with this current disruption.
I'm not sure why this is soo difficult for you, but I'll try it again; go to the article talk page and explain why you believe your edit belongs. Your comments should have nothing to to with me or what rules you think I may or may not be breaking. Just simply state how your edit improves the article while also conforming to WP's policies & guidelines.
If you had just done this when your edit was first reverted, (as you should have), then I'm sure this would've been all sorted out by now. Have a nice day - wolf 03:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: You complained about a lack of sources. I explained my rationale and you never responded. Therefore I reverted your edit and added the source like you asked. You still deleted it. I will be adding the civil war origins paragraph back with the source as you have not provided any reasoning for your second deletion. It was not a bold edit and editing does not require posting on the talk page. This is evident from just comparing the page's edit history with the talk page's edit history. If you are willing to have an actual discussion on the content, I'm all ears. Wade991 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the last time, article content needs to be discussed on article talk pages. This. Is. Not. The. Place. I'm not sure what you're referring to about sourcing, but that is not necessarily the only issue about that content. It's needs to be discussed on the article talk page. That way, others from the community who may be interested can join the discussion, and there is a singular record of all comments from all editors, for the purposes of WP:CONSENSUS (which is part of the WP:ONUS you need to add content) and so discussion is not spread all over multiple user talk pages.
This is very simple. Go to Talk:75th Ranger Regiment and start a new thread, include a quote of the content you want to add, include a link to any sources, and a brief explanation of why you think the content should be added. Focus on content, not editors. (IOW, no "Thewolfchild this" and "Thewolfchild that") I will add a comment to the thread as well and that will be the start of a content discussion. A discussion that others may join. A discussion, that will determine whether or not the content is added. That's how it works.
That will not be discussed or decided here, nor will you threatening to re-add it, or edit-warring to do so, just because you think you're right, be a solution. That is just disruptive. Same as you repeatedly pinging me here. Go. to. the. article. talk. page. just. like. everyone. else. does. - wolf 14:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added note

[edit]

Just saw your latest revert now. You can't expect people to be on WP 24 hours a day. You need to give others more than one hour to respond to your threats. Stop your disruptive editing and start discussing, on the article talk page. We're done here. - wolf 14:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

You just received a warning about edit warring and your first step was to continue edit warring? I would again encourage you to read everything on this page, carefully and completely. Meanwhile, the Ranger article is at WP:QUO until the disputed has actually been discussed. - wolf 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: You should read your own links. You should not revert until you explain a reasoning, which you have repeatedly failed to do. "editors should reach consensus", which is something you refuse to do. In the many rantings you've left on my page, none have included a rationale or issue with my edit. If you have an issue, raise the issue, otherwise do not revert the edits of others. You are clearly ignoring the "D" in BRD. Wade991 (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging me here just to post insults? Just stop. At some point you'll need to realize the rules apply to you, just like everyone else. You've now been well advised of them, so just follow them. This is my last post here. (save for any additional notices as required). - wolf 23:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: you literally ask people to ping you when replying to your comments, if that upsets you then rewrite your tp. I also haven't posted a single insult towards you, so this will be my first. Do you have a personality disorder? because it would explain your behavior. Wade991 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wade991&oldid=1025854443"