User talk:Regiment
Honour of Richmond
[edit]Rather than slap pointless template all over Honour of Richmond, let me tell you what leaps out at me:
| “ | The capital district was originally based in Catraeth, Rheged as the home of King Urien of Gore. British history describes Peter Thompson, who supposedly discovered the tomb of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table under Richmond Castle's crypt. He is said to have found a horn and a poltergeist resulted when lifting Excalibur.[1] When Richmondshire was founded, it revived the ancient British presence of Cumbria. The importance of Brittany, Wales and their colonial connections with the Honour of Richmond in English history is most often not taught in public education. Although territorially English, Richmond is wholly of the Cambro-Breton, rather than Anglo-Norman experience. | ” |
Where to start? Is there any evidence that Rheged was based around Catterick? Is Richmondshire in Cumbria? Is there a reason why all this is not taught in public education? And "wholly...Cambro-Breton", really? The further you get into the article, the more reasonable it becomes, but the early stuff is really not up to snuff. Last I heard, Catterick was definitely a Northumbrian royal vill/urbs regis. Strange that isn't mentioned in the crusade for Cambro-Breton identity. Given the connection between royal vills and small-shires, that would be worth a mention. Merging this into Richmondshire might not be a bad idea. The single reference seems to deal with post-1066 Richmondshire. Anyway, that's my tuppenceworth. You're free to take it or leave it as you will. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked, for 3 hours
[edit]
This is as a result of this discussion; please see that link for further explanation, and a comment directed at you regarding your editing.
Kind regards,
Anthøny ん 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please see my response to your comments at Template talk:Racism topics.
I'm sorry if it seems like a group of editors has ganged up against you. It may be difficult, but please try to assume good faith. Also, please note that some of us haven't expressed an opinion about your view that Chicano nationalism and the Mexica Movement are racist — we've tried to explain Wikipedia process to you.
I tried to explain yesterday that we can't add articles to the template because one editor — or a group of editors — feel that a group or ideology is "obviously", "clearly", or "blatantly" racist. By the same token, articles shouldn't be removed because one editor (or a group of editors) don't want them in the template.
The information in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on verifiable reliable sources, not what seems "obvious" or "clear" to one editor or a group of editors. As I wrote, the articles about La Raza (which isn't an ideology), Chicano nationalism, and the Mexica Movement don't say that they are racist. They don't say that they have been described as racist, or criticized for being racist, or anything of that nature.
Compare that with the Nation of Islam. There is a section of the article about the group's antisemitism and a whole article about it: Nation of Islam and antisemitism. Including the NoI in the template isn't based on my opinion that the group is "obviously" racist and antisemitic, it's based on a well-documented Wikipedia article that cites sources that say the NoI is racist and antisemitic.
Making decisions based on what seems "obvious" or "clear" to one editor or a group of editors, in the absence of reliable sources, is considered original research, and Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it. That doesn't mean that you're right or you're wrong, or that I'm right or I'm wrong, it just means that it isn't supported by reliable sources.
So please don't edit-war over adding articles to the template. Read some of the relevant Wikipedia policies, find reliable sources (if there are any) to support your assertions, and edit the articles appropriately. When an article supports an editor's suggestion that it belongs in the template, there shouldn't be an argument about including it.
I'm sorry that this message is so long, but I hope I can help you understand that this isn't a political battle. If you have any questions, please leave a message at Template talk:Racism topics or on my Talk page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Racism topics. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors.
You were blocked yesterday for violating 3RR. Today you've already made four reversions to the template. Please consider whether you would like to be blocked again. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- While he could have been a little nicer than the sarcastic Please consider whether you would like to be blocked again., and while I agree that the articles you added to the template definitely do warrant inclusion in the template, you do need to go through the discussion process of adding the articles to the template rather than edit warring with everyone. Unfortunately, admins usually side with each other.. that's their little clique.. so if you go through the proper process, you can usually avoid their snide and holier than thou remarks and actually get valid and useful content employed. Chin up and press on. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]You have just come off a block for a 3RR violation and deliberately broke it again, Also you were POV pushing and made personal attacks concerning other editors' motives when asked to provide sources for your edits. This really isn't an acceptable way to approach wikipedia. You have been blocked for a week to demonstrate clearly that we will not accept any repetition of this behaviour. You are very welcome to return to editing after the block expires but you must learn to work within our editing standards. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I fully endorse this. Regiment, please do understand that it is essential that you discuss your disagreements, rather than attempt to physically implement them through revert-warring. Please take your disputes to the person's talk page, and discuss it through calmly and civilly; if that fails, proceed to Mediation or Arbitration. However, Edit Warring will not be accepted. Anthøny 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)