User talk:Doubledoppler

UK and related articles

Though I agree with parts of your edits. Trust me, they ain't gonna last long & you're risking getting yourself blocked. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia blocks users for making accurate improvements then god help us all Doubledoppler (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your boldness, but it's not how we do things here. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would be pleased to engage in constructive discussions with you to achieve a more accurate introductory description to these pages Doubledoppler (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that you would do so on the talkpages of the articles-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d rather you stop reverting my edits which improve the accuracy of the article. There is literally nothing better than anyone could be doing for Wikipedia than improving the accuracy of articles and instead you obstruct me in doing that. If you have any evidence to suggests my edits are inaccurate, I’d like to see it. If not, I expect you to revert to my edit as a means of apology. Doubledoppler (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm in agreement with parts of your edits. But, you're not getting the hint. If you don't stop your current approach, you will end up getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The hint that says I shouldn’t be adding accurate information to Wikipedia? Sounds legit... Doubledoppler (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a geography and history teacher based in the UK, I think I have a respectable idea of the accuracy of my edits on these topics. Doubledoppler (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationhood and change of languages

Would be best to bring up these changes on the talk page of each article. The lead sentence that your changing was established after long talks involving many editors. Just need to state your cases on the talk page.--Moxy 🍁 03:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from but my edit improved the accuracy of the introduction, it was not factually inaccurate in any way whatsoever, therefore there is no reason for my improvements to not stand Doubledoppler (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best to read over WP:3RV and WP:BRD.....don't get blocked before you have a chance to voice your opinion.--Moxy 🍁 03:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, my edit improved the accuracy of the information so there is no need for you to be reverted my edits. I suggest you restore my edits as a means of apology. Doubledoppler (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll soon find that myself & Moxy, are the more easing going, on this topic. My guess is there'll be a few British editors out there, who'll be less patient with you. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but I absolutely do not understand why you are on high horse over this. Simply, my edits were accurate and added to the article. Anyone who opposes such should not be editing Wikipedia, regardless of nationality. Besides, I am British also. Doubledoppler (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The terms used for these articles point of contention since their Inception. I agree nation is better descriptor.... but that's not what the consensus was about these articles. In my view...Scotland is not an independent country or state, and neither are Wales, Northern Ireland, or England itself. However, Scotland is most certainly a nation of people living in an internal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.--Moxy 🍁 04:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we generally agree, please do not revert my edits because it really is counterproductive. Your frequent reverts to my accurate edits have certainly made me less enthusiastic to contribute again, which is unfortunate. Doubledoppler (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will be over with, when the British editors, who guard those articles, become aware of your changes. GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a geography and history teacher based in the UK, I think I have a respectable idea of the accuracy of my edits on these topics. Doubledoppler (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t you think it’s sad that editors like you describe are prepared to revert factually accurate edits which offer an improvement to articles? Doubledoppler (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wish you well on your quest to transform Canada into a republic.

Perhaps after you have succeeded in such a quest, I too will be able to succeed in a similar quest for my country.

🇬🇧🤝🇨🇦 Doubledoppler (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Doubledoppler reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy 🍁 04:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure wish you would 'stop' editing warring & bring your energies to Talk:United Kingdom, instead. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure wish you weren’t so petty by choosing to revert my legitimate and accurate edits. Go figure. Doubledoppler (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Wales, England, Scotland, United Kingdom, and others. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck am I being punished for making constructive, completely accurate edits? This is crazy. Doubledoppler (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. Wikipedia frowns on edit-warring. If you want something changed in an article, you go to that article's talkpage & seek a consensus (i.e. convince others, to agree with the changes you wish to make). GoodDay (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMUNICATE may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User:Mutt Lunker may be offensive or unwelcome. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments. BilCat (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nick Brown, you may be blocked from editing. Alex (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly not disruptive editing. I’m improving the article and summarising the infobox as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and building on the rest of the article.

No attempts to seek consensus despite undoing edits of other users and no edit summaries either. Alex (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should of sought consensus for your edits too on that basis as you have been reverting edits. If needs be I will have to revert to status quo which disregards both our edits, otherwise please respect the edits I have made which have removed the single frontbench non shadow cabinet position from the infobox and condensed the infobox further as per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

You failed to provide a single policy to justify your edits, until I directed you to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which states that key facts must be included. His time as Opposition deputy chief whip is a key fact and warrants inclusion. You would have known this was my position had you just followed Wikipedia policy and opened a talk page discussion (as I have done), rather than revert which according to your talk page seems entirely consistent with your behaviour. Alex (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The role of opposition deputy chief whip is not a shadow cabinet position, therefore without including all of his opposition frontbench positions - legal, treasury, health and deputy chief whip, it is not appropriate to include in infobox, regardless of if it is a "key fact". Doubledoppler (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It states in the infobox that it was a "Shadow post", not a "Shadow Cabinet post", quite clearly. Alex (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the phrase "regardless of if it is a 'key fact'" directly contravenes WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Alex (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His shadow post as deputy whip is not more important than his other shadow posts, they are all key facts, clearly Doubledoppler (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to include all his shadow posts on infobox if that is our consensus, but I fear it contradicts WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE which you clearly hold dear

That appears to be our consensus then. I shall add them asap. Alex (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is information about the entirety of his opposition frontbench posts on his page on the UK Parliament website, including dates served in each. Please kindly maintain his current office as MP for Newcastle East near the top of the infobox, as it is important readers understand his current offices unambiguously. Doubledoppler (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware where to find that info, you don't have to patronise me. Alex (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to, rather I was trying to be helpful. Good luck in finding the successor and predecessors for each of his frontbench posts (necessary to add them to Infobox). I will be genuinely impressed if you can. Doubledoppler (talk) 12:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Doubledoppler (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

Given your last block just a few days ago, and knowledge of what is and what isn't edit warring, plus my ping to you atANEW, I have blocked you for a week and would suggest you proceed with caution from hereon. When you get unblocked, please start talk page discussions on the article's talk page and follow whatever is the consensus there.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Nick Brown. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Lourdes 02:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Politialguru per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]