User talk:Ronald Wenonah

War of 1812

Wenonah, the changes that you made on the War of 1812 article should have been discussed on the talk page before making them. You have removed some valuable references and injected your opinions. You should revert them yourself and then go to the talk page and give your reasoning for wanting the changes that you have made.Dwalrus (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My judgment of you was based on the fact that just about every edit you made either (a) had already been reverted, or (b) was sufficiently questionable to merit reversion. Deleting cited material (as you did at War of 1812) is a red flag; don't do it without consultation, or leaving a clear comment in the edit history justifying it. If you have issues with the balance of an article, especially one with an active edit history, apply a tag like {{unbalanced}} to the page, and discuss your concerns on the talk page. If you don't you just look like a vandal. Magic♪piano 21:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wenonah, your edits do not appear to be based on fact but on your opinion. As has been stated you deleted valuable references and that did nothing to improve the article. You should go to the talk page and present your arguments there rather than simply editing the article. Dwalrus (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wenonah, this just looks like vandalism or POV pushing. Don't remove cited material, if you have other sources then by all means bring them to the talk page for discussion. --Tirronan (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do any more removal of any cited material I'll see what can be done about removing your editing privileges. I don't like talk pages either so I hope I don't have to speak on the matter again.--Tirronan (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to War of 1812

I see you tried to make a cited change to War of 1812 and realized that you had a little bit of difficulty for future reference the code for citations should look like <ref> CITED TEXT </ref> Hope that helps, if you have any questions working with Wikipedia feel free to contact me on my talk page, Sadads (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More edits on War of 1812

I have deleted your latest comment. It seems that you are engaged in little more than a subtle form of vandalism. The book by Martin Windrow, Not One Step Back, does not support what you claim. You certainly know that and are just putting up a false source to confuse people. Please stop this silly behavior. Dwalrus (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your post because you cited a source that did not support your statement. That is not an opinion but a fact. I see that since I deleted that post you have put up another that cites a book that is written for young people. It actual contains at least one factual inaccuracy but I'm going to leave it there for others to deal with. If you are really interested in editing the War of 1812 article then I suggest you do some reading by some of the major historians on it. Dwalrus (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on the negotiations of the 1783 Treaty of Paris is not appropriate for this article on the War of 1812. If you want to give your reasons for its inclusion then do so on the talk page. If you don't it will be deleted by myself or someone else. Dwalrus (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It concerns me to see Wikipedia used as a forum for opinions, especially when they take on a nationalistic tone. I enjoy opinion columns, but an encyclopedia is not their place. In your recent additions to the 1812 article, you reached back another 29 years to support your position, and the need to do so only weakened your point. If your Treaty of Paris comment is correct, it is the only statement of fact. The remainder is a sweeping conjectural statement about the American state of mind. By repeatedly invoking revenge as a motive you are even going so far as to comment on their emotional state. The part about using an alliance with France as an excuse is entirely hypothetical, and it would not survive even the most superficial scrutiny.

You have asked me to avoid an edit war, but this is not a close call at all. Your contibution is not reasonable and it detracts from the credibility of the article. Geometricks (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've about had it, any more of your misadventures in the article War of 1812 and we are heading for the admins. Deliberate misquoting of sources to push a point of view is not at all allowed. Consider this your last warning.Tirronan (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion of your edits on War of 1812 is taking place at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#User:Ronald_Wenonah. Feel free to comment. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edits again, this is a poorly written and makes assumptions neither are allowed in wikipedia, how many times by how many editors do you have to hear this from?Tirronan (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to the message you left me: You've quoted childrens books, you have flat out lied about citations and what they actually said as opposed to what you reported they said. I like to assume that all editors make edits in good faith. Regardless of your intentions lying to me and the other editors to put in your edits really doesn't help your case. Just the fact that your edit is very badly written alone would be enough to reject the edit on the spot. The other issue is that, no matter what the source, just flat speculation as to what the mood of the country was. Both countries had a lot of friction points between them and nations will rarely go to war out of revenge. You can find an author to back about anything in the War of 1812 that doesn't make it correct to reliable sources or up with the current historiography. Your edits are way out on a limb and that is in agreement with litterally every editor on that article. Do yourself and the community a favor and really sit down with 4 mainstream books late editions of either either nationality, They don't change much and I can't support that change. Please stop the edit warring.Tirronan (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Wenonah, you should post your justification for your editing on the War of 1812 talk page and not on my personal talk page. I have not made any comment on your most recent edit and I don't know why you claim that I have. However, since you seem to want me to comment on it I will do so now.

The first three points that I stated in my September 14 post on Tirronan's talk page are all contained in your first two sentences and those two sentences do not add anything important to the article. The reference to the 1783 Treaty of Paris, as I have stated before, should not be in an article on the War of 1812. Stanley never made the claim that the failure of the US to get Canada in the 1783 Treaty of Paris set "the stage for the War of 1812." That is your personal opinion or POV. The author of a book has the space to include considerably more material than it is possible to include in an article. An article should be restricted to essential info and an extended reference to the American Revolution and the 1783 Treaty of Paris that occurred almost 30 years before the War of 1812 is not essential info.

I am encouraged to see that you dropped the bogus claim that the US had 35,000 regular troops at the beginning of the war. Also, it is encouraging that you dropped your speculation that: "Had Canada been captured it would have been unlikely that a Britain distracted with the Napoleonic Wars would have pressed the issue of who owned the obscure Canadas and annexation would have likely occurred , purposefully or otherwise."

As I said before, you should take your explanations/justifications for your editing to the War of 1812 talk page.Dwalrus (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of 1812 October 2010

Ronald Wenonah I am an administrator and have commented on the article (see the current talk page and the last archive) also see my comments on the talk page of Talk:Thirteen Colonies. I will leave it to you to judge from those comments whether I am American.

I have been looking at your edit history over (100 edits) for the edit to the article War of 1812 and your contributions to the talk page of the article.

The first edit I see to the talk page was this edit made 22:25, 2 September 2010. It was not helpful! Since then you have made edits to the talk page on the 2 and 3 of September: The edits can be rolled into two edit first and a last edit Revision as of 13:28, 12 September 2010 Since then you have made nine "Undid revision" which means reversals and four other edits.

You need to drill down on the talk page exactly (by the paragraph, the sentence and if necessary the word) what it is that you object to in the text, in the sources used etc. Do not complain that those who oppose you are Americans. It may be true, but it will not get you anywhere. The first point is that you need to get others to recognise what it is specifically you object to, and then work out a compromise. But as you are in a minority, revering edits in the article without discourse on the talk page, will not change the article and is likely to get you discussed in a section in the ANI. -- PBS (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posted the above to you talk page you have made two more edits to the article War of 1812

15:24, 30 October 2010 Ronald Wenonah (→United States expansionism)
16:12, 30 October 2010 Tirronan m (Reverted edits by Ronald Wenonah (talk) to last version by Gotipe)
04:34, 31 October 2010 Yobot (WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes + genfixes using AWB (7356)) (undo)
20:53, 31 October 2010 Ronald Wenonah (Undid revision 393809693 by Tirronan (talk)) (undo)
20:57, 31 October 2010 Dwalrus (Undid revision 394040524 by Ronald Wenonah (talk)Reverted POV comments)

You are wasting your time and other peoples and introducing instability to the article. There is nothing wrong with editing an article with a BOLD edit. But if that edit is reverted you should discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page and try to reach a consensus (see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).

If you make another edit to the article, with a similar content that has been reverted, before trying to engage in a constructive conversation of the talk page of the article, I will open an WP:ANI do discuss whether your behaviour over this article is disruptive -- PBS (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ronald Wenonah and edits to War of 1812 -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald, I have taken a look at your reverting over at the War of 1812 article. As per our policy at WP:3RR you should have been blocked in mid-October for reverting four times in a 24 hour period, you clearly slipped under the radar. You are one revert away from violating 3RR again now. I encourage you to seek consensus by discussion before you begin editing actual article space again. You ought to consider this a final warning on edit warring, to continue will lead to your account being blocked. Please take notice. Thank you, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 00:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive647#User:Ronald Wenonah and edits to War of 1812 -- PBS (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

FYI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ronald Wenonah -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, the War of 1812 again

Well I will give you one for persistent behavior, not all that constructive but you are persistent. Ronald, 1st off virtually everything you have said is already in the article if you would bother to look, it wasn't revenge it was 19 years of trade friction and impressment that finally set it off, that isn't revenge. But why in God's name do you have to restate it again? You've been on the edge of a outright ban over this do we have to go back to the admins again?Tirronan (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had my own problems with Tirronan. In the times I have had to deal with him, I found him to be a bully and abusive. He seems to have nothing to do except to pursue vindictive little campaigns against other editors with whom he disagrees. In the end, I decided to stop editing on Wikipedia in order to avoid him. A time will come when others whom he has harassed will come together to get any privileges he may have permanently revoked. On that day, please send me a note; I will gladly pitch in. 17:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs)

My apologies to both you gentlemen if you have perceived my actions as in any way personal, I assure you that they are not. I feel in both cases that lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy has led to the problems we have had. While I might not agree with either of your edits, it in no way should be construed as lack of respect for either of your personally. In this case I was trying to warn you Ronald that a block might happen, I did not instigate that block, however given that you went right back to edit warring when the block went off I did not feel like I had a choice. Almost every active editor has reverted your edit for about two years if my memory serves me correctly. The only thing you have said in your edit that isn't repeated already in the article is the revenge motive and unfortunately I don't think you are going to find that a major factor in the current historiography that has held sway since about 1968 or so. I tell you what if it would make you feel better we can work out a page on various minority theories to the causes of the War of 1812, clearly labeled as such and I can hive it off the War of 1812 or at least help you approach the rest of the editors with that idea. However I was not the one that blocked you this time, nor did I ask that you be blocked until you inserted the same comment the same way. I have reverted you exactly once and each of the other editors at least twice. I know I make a nice target but you have been warned and by other people than me. Trying to make this personal isn't going to work very well.Tirronan (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at War of 1812. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —GFOLEY FOUR— 01:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. your War of 1812 edits June 11th, 2011

Please be advised that I have reported you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for your repeated violations and disruptive editing. I am not an administrator and if you have anything to offer in your own defense I would do so at this time.Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello Ronald Wenonah,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the [[WP:AN/EW#User:Ronald_Wenonah_reported_by_User:Tirronan}_.28Result:_.29|Administrators' noticeboard]].
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the [[WP:AN/EW#User:Ronald_Wenonah_reported_by_User:Tirronan}_.28Result:_.29|noticeboard]]. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 17:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. rʨanaɢ (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

War of 1812

Ronald, would you mind terribly if I asked you to come over to the talk page of the war or 1812 and lets work out this content issue that you seem to have? I simply don't want to have to back to the ANI board again and ask for a ban. Let us see what can be worked out shall we?Tirronan (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Hunting

I have reverted your edits on Hunting as blantant POV, in violation of our neutrality policy. Please remember that all additions should be cited to a reliable source, and that goes doubly for anything contentious. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's viatl that editors don;t push a particular point of view, and do please make sure that you follow our verifiability policy as well. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]