User talk:Aggressively Monarchist Australian

Elizabeth II & Charles III

The arguments you're bringing to those two pages, are old arguments. The consensus (per WP:WEIGHT), doesn't agree with your position. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay

according to WP:WEIGHT undue weight should not be given to minority view points or aspects of a subject or article. However, I don't see how this is a minority aspect, it is a fact that the other Commonwealth Realms are of equal status to the UK and thus they should be included in the short description and in appropriate sections.

Moreover, these certainly aren't unsupported facts or minority opinions, they are cold, hard, and entirely relevant facts that which need to be mentioned for people to know all the relevant information pertaining to these articles.

Would you mind linking me to where this consensus was found as I am unable to locate it myself.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II & Charles III are most associated with the United Kingdom. Both were born in the UK, one is buried their with the other most likely to be buried there. As a result, the UK is the only commonwealth realm, that doesn't have a governor-general. Being an Australian monarchists, you might not like it, but that's simply the way it is. Also, on Wikipedia, you can't force your PoV, so I recommend you stop edit warring on this topic & stick the talkpages. As for links? check the archives of those talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay

I truly do not understand how adding the Commonwealth Realms is pushing a PoV in any way. It is a fact that they are equally the monarchs of the Commonwealth Realms and the UK. That is in no way an opinion.

I will try finding said consensus in the archives again, I was asking for the link as I had failed to do so on a first attempt.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you're arguing, is nothing new. Anyways, You've already made your edit requests at both bio talkpages. Do study the responses there. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay

You didn't even address how I'm actually pushing a PoV.

Moreover, I have concede that other Wikipedians seem to think it an unnecessary addition. I may, personally, believe these people to be woefully mistaken and are in doing so making the articles less informative but I am forced to abide by the will of the masses.

Truly, democracy at work, that being said, democracy can bite it. (I feel it important to say that this last part is a jest, on the internet people tend to take jokes and run with them, thus I am clarifying)

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your arguments are old. That being said, I hope you'll abide by consensus. Otherwise, forcing changes into any pages on any topic, tend to lead to getting blocked from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay

Again, I could not find and can not find this consensus. However, as you can see, I am admitting defeat as the masses are against me.

I've not attempted to force changes, I attempted to put in what I thought and think is relevant information, when instead it was suggested that I go to the talk page instead of continuing to edit back and forth I did so, I have not made an edit of the kind that we are talking about since, as you can see by the time stamps.

I don't appreciate the very thinly veiled threat, thank you.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the archives of those two pages. As for the latter point, I'm merely pointing out that on Wikipedia, aggressive editing tends to be frowned upon. Just trying to help you out. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay

I apologise for getting heated, as you can see on the talk page two people, including yourself, and then an additional third person had all contacted me about this same thing, that in addition to the frustration of the whole affair left me with my hackles up.

I am sorry for the way I spoke to you, I entirely forgot to be civil and for that, again, I apologise.

Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the consensus, I will continue to look for it, although I have already been looking in the archives for His Majesty, King Charles III, and have been unable to, I'll be checking that of her Late Majesty, Queen Elizabeth ii, momentarily.

Once again, sorry for being blunt and rather uncouth with the whole matter.

Have a good one mate.

Cheers.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Please read Wikipedia:Short description and stop making short, concise descriptions longer to advance your personal point of view. That is disruptive editing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328

Adding the Commonwealth Realms isn't a personal point of view, it is a fact that they are equally the monarchs of the Commonwealth Realms and the UK. That is a fact and not an opinion, I'm sure you will agree.

All I was doing was adding in relevant information, information that is really very important. That is in no way pushing a personal opinion nor is it disruptive. Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making short descriptions longer is disruptive editing. These descriptions are not designed to be comprehensive. They are specifically intended to be very brief and concise descriptions. There is plenty of room in the article itself to describe that they are the monarchs of the Commonwealth Realms, and guess what? These articles already discuss that in great detail. So please stop making short descriptions longer. It does not improve the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

I have had you on my watchlist since you joined because I was concerned you were using an intentionally disruptive username, but I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your recent edits to the Elizabeth and Charles articles and on this page suggest that you are not here to respect established consensus, and if your username is an accurate description of your worldview, then it may be difficult for you to determine what is due or undue weight in these matters. I would recommend you back away from monarch-related articles for a little while and demonstrate through other contributions that you are genuinely here to help build an encyclopedia. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 04:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh

As I said on one of the other talk pages I was unable to find this consensus, I ahve still been unable to find it actually.

However, when it was suggested by one user that instead of repeatedly editing I instead go to the talk pages, I did, I listened to them and stopped editing immediately and instead went to the talk pages, as shown by the time stamps of the edits and the talk pages on said articles.

I am not attempting to be disruptive nor am I attempting to disrespect established consensus, like I said, I have been entirely unable to find this consensus.

Moreover, I have been contributing bit and pieces here and there in order to help build the encyclopaedia, when I have what I believe to be a relevant edit I have been doing it, this is the same thing that I attempted to do here. you'll also notice that I haven't continued to try as it would seem that public opinion is against me on this particular subject.

As for the username, I can entirely understand why it might be of concern, however, I do not intend to cause trouble, I chose this username since I knew that I would be able to contribute to articles about monarchy more than anything else as I'm more knowledgeable on that subject than most other subjects, I'm Australian and I honestly just wanted it to be three words because I thought it sounded better. But again, I can see why the username would be of concern.

Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going to the talk pages as you were advised. You will see that near the top of the talk pages for both Charles III and Elizabeth II, there is a search box with a 'Search archives' button that will search past conversations for that subject. I searched both for 'Commonwealth realms' and got quite a few results, so that is where I would start reading. (Forgive me if this is too much hand-holding, but as you're new here you might not have explored all the features available.) — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh

That is actually extremely helpful, I didn't actually know you were able to search all the archives at once, I was going through them one at a time.

thank you. Aggressively Monarchist Australian (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! You will find search boxes like that on the talk pages of many articles that have been around for a long time and have had plenty of discussion. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day

Hi, I noticed you're a new Wikipedian. Welcome! I've seen you've been getting a few terse responses to 'being bold'. Some people are very good at learning the Wikipedia policies and staunchly defending them. I myself have encountered such things in the past. Sometimes they have a barrow to push, but by and large they mean well. I hope it doesn't dissuade you! I myself dabble in the medieval Scottish monarchy myself so we might not cross paths. I hope you enjoy your Wikipedia journey! Comes.amanuensis (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]