User talk:Our den said vie wrens

Edit warring on Union Theological College article

Hi @Our den said vie wrens, I would like to discuss edits you have recently made to the article Union Theological College. You have reverted 6 of my edits in the space of 24 hours, which violates the 3 revert rule:

For each of my edits that you reverted, there was a description of the edit, explaining why I had made the edit. You haven't explained why you have reverted any of my edits.

For one of the edits, I was simply marking dead links, which should be a useful activity regardless of views about the content of the article.

For most of my edits the description makes reference to discussions on the Talk page for the article. I made suggestions for these changes over a year ago. There have been no objections, exception by users who turned out to be sockpuppets and were banned. You have not engaged in any discussion on the Talk page. Given the substantial time that there has been for people to object to the proposed changes I think it would be most appropriate for you to stop reverting them and discuss on the Talk page why you think they should be reverted. I have created a section for that here: Talk:Union Theological College#Edit warring over previously discussed issues

If you continue to revert my edits without a reasonable explanation and/or continue to violate the 3 revert rule I will report you. I hope that instead we can resolve this and both contribute productively to the article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was not aware of the rule to which you refer. I will have a look at the talk page to which you have now referred me.

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Our den said vie wrens, thanks for engaging with the issues on the Union Theological College Talk page. You raised a few issues there which seemed to be more about me than the article. If I’ve understood you correctly, it may be helpful to read up on Wikipedia’s policy for dealing with concerns about user conduct: ‘If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and directway. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages.’ WP:RUCD. I hope this helps you deal appropriately with issues you may be concerned about while keeping the article Talk page focused on article content. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. You have evidently been editing Wikipedia for far longer than me. However, I thought I was already discussing sources as you seem to have latterly suggested.

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Our den said vie wrens Since I made my previous comment you have contributed again to Union Theological College talk page and you have made several speculative comments about my possible motives for making edits. those are comments about me rather than the article. They are not appropriate for the Talk page of the article. I refer specifically to these comments and I have put in bold the bits that seme to me to be more about me than the article:

'I remain to be convinced that there is not necessarily some conflation here between perceived irrelevance and personal inconvenience, so please try to persuade me otherwise.'
'one could therefore be forgiven for thinking that you merely wish to delete this information because it is subjectively inconvenient for a certain someone of a divergent political persuasion who might profess otherwise Reformed theology to have such an association with the college' [7]

If you wish to discuss my conduct, the appropriate place for that is my user Talk page, not the article Talk page. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Hi @Our den said vie wrens, your username appears to be a phonetic spelling of my username. Given that we both seem to have an interest in Irish Presbyterianism and have made a number of edits to the Union Theological College article, there’s potential for confusion there.

And to be honest reading comments from someone whose username sounds like mine, but was created after mine, and seems to have opposite views to me, is a little unsettling. It’s the kind of thing that can raise suspicion of trolling.

I would like to think that you’re engaging in discussion in good faith and created your username with no awareness of mine, so if you would consider taking steps to clearly disambiguate our accounts, perhaps by making some sort of username change WP:UNC, taking account Wikipedia’s policy on usernames WP:USERNAME, that would be greatly appreciated. I hope you can understand my concern here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I fully appreciate your concern here in relation to what is evidently written media, since our user names are clearly distinct already, with less than 55% identity of letters and gaps when combined in order. Your own choice of user name apparently consists of a single long word that is not found any dictionary to which I have access, so strictly speaking it would appear to be a neologism, at least as it currently stands. By contrast, mine consists of five short words that could readily be found in any typical English dictionary, and which already constituted the opening line of some doggerel. However, perhaps you could directly supply or otherwise refer to an audio recording of how you would pronounce both user names concerned, and then further refer me to the specific clauses in Wikipedia:Username policy that you think are therefore pertinent. If there is a real issue here, then I am certainly happy to consider your suggestion.

However, the advice on the page to which I think you intended to ultimately direct me (through what was apparently a redirect page) states the following:

Usernames can be changed by global renamers; requests should be made at Wikipedia:Changing username. User accounts with few or no edits might not be renamed, as it is quicker and easier to simply create a new account.

In light of this, what do you think is the realistic likelihood that my account would be renamed in accordance with your own expressed wishes anyway? If this is such a sensitive matter for you, do you think I should simply create a new account instead, as suggested above?

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Our den said vie wrens My user name is the Latin phrase 'ardens sed virens' with the spaces removed to make it one word. If you say that phrase out loud then it sounds very similar to your username said out loud. I don't think a recording would be necessary for you to see that.

You say the phrase 'already constituted the opening line of some doggerel,' however when I google the phrase the only results I find are for your username.

I think that your username violates the policy on disruptive or offensive usernames WP:ATTACKNAME:

Usernames that contain or imply personal attacks, or imply the intent to personally attack, harass, or threaten other Wikipedia editors.
Usernames that appear intended to disrupt legitimate Wikipedia discussions and processes by provoking negative emotional reactions from other editors (also known as "trolling")

I don't know what the likelihood is of you being able to rename the account or whether you would have to close the account and open a new one. that would be a matter for administrators to decide, not me. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Our den said vie wrens I should also have added that I think your username violates the policy on similar usernames WP:SIMILARNAME:

One should not choose a username that implies a relationship with an existing editor (unless the account is actually owned or the relationship is acknowledged by the editor themselves). Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Alias the Jester per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alias the Jester. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]