User talk:WyndingHeadland

I note that you have made some extensive edits in Highland Clearances and on talk:Highland Clearances. This all appears to be with little other background in Wikipedia. May I ask that you step back from further edits, take a deep breath, and read some of the editing principles for Wikipedia? The one that I think that one that you need to concentrate on is WP:RS. You need to remember that Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia - not a platform for the views of any of its editors. Therefore anything that is put into an article must be supportable by an authoritative source, for which the editor provides a reference. There are a lot more rules that an editor needs to have in mind, but that is a starting point.

I appreciate that someone hitting you with a whole load of rules just as you have got started on this is not very welcoming. However, I would ask you to consider this. Wikipedia is actually very inclusive. Anyone can come and edit an article (as long as they follow the rules). Any feedback that you get on those edits will be based on what the edits say - there is no bias based on who or what you are (because nobody knows that unless you tell them).

A thought about rules and Wikipedia. If you use an informal game of football (soccer) in the park - just a few people kicking a ball about - as an analogy. If you asked if you could join in, then the assumption is that you have a working knowledge and understanding of the rules of soccer. But if you started playing to a different set of rules, say Rugby or American Football, quite understandably the others in the game would get upset and probably ask you to leave. In Wikipedia, first you do not need to ask to join. Then if you do not follow the rules, someone tries to point you in the right direction (as in this post). Ultimately, if you do not or cannot follow Wikipedia protocols, then this is not the place for you and you need to post your opinions elsewhere. But I hope you realise that Wikipedia tries to point new users in the right direction, so that you can contribute if you wish.

May I suggest that you take a detailed look at some articles on which you do not have strong opinions. This might help you to understand what we are all trying to do.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This is to advise you, as per the appropriate protocols, that I have posted a complaint about your disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WyndingHeadland. You've been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WyndingHeadland reported by User:ThoughtIdRetired (Result: No violation). The report is already closed with no action, but you may add your own comment there if you wish. This looks to me like a two-person dispute that could benefit from proper discussion. There are steps of WP:DR that can be tried. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WyndingHeadland. I have to disagree with your edit summary, ""User's conflict resolution deemed superfluous by admins, therefore revert to consensus." You have to be an optimist to see the current discussion at Talk:Highland Clearances as being a consensus for either side. There is no substitute for a proper working out of the issues on the article talk page. Also the user's effort was not superfluous, it just wasn't adequate to the needs. If reverting continues, admins may apply full protection, which would freeze the article completely. That seems undesirable if conversation is still possible. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EdJohnston.

The user ThoughtIdRetired is seeing edit summaries as being a closing down of conversation instead of additional talk beyond the talk page.

My reading of your findings is synonymous with your reading, it isn't antonymous. The general effect is the same, if it isn't the same. Appreciate that the precise wording is my own.

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Scots Gaels. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scots Gaels, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Scots Gaels, without resolving the problem that the template refers to. This may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to read the closing statement for this report. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite would do well to improve their manner. That said. The facts. The decision ignoring the common occurrence and Wikipedia practice is suggesting that a demonym isn't what it is. Google translate Highlander:Ghàidheal. They have ignored the other two templates: and reason given. Gael has it's own article. Scot doesn't translate into Gaelic because it is a Latin term: the Scots Gaels are the originators of Scotland. How can a Scots Gael call themself something that either doesn't exist or refers to themself other than Albannaich. It isn't possible. The third template has been given 2 sources. The admin isn't competent. WyndingHeadland (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WyndingHeadland, your confidence that you are right does not give you permission to continue reverting the article. Please wait till you have persuaded the others on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't confidence. It's the truth. lt isn't an emotional attachment to the truth. It is the truth. There isn't any emotion. The user is engaged in a witch hunt. WyndingHeadland (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring at Scots Gaels

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

You have continued warring at Scots Gaels after the full protection expired, and without seeming to take notice of Black Kite's closure of the ANI. The quality of your sources has been challenged and you don't seem to have any interest in rectifying that. Whether sources are adequate is a matter for consenensus and your personal pronouncement on the matter does not settle it. EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

EdJohnston Please cite the template that there wasn't a source given for or a note on the common fact that WP: CITEOVERKILL makes a source unnecessary for. The blocking is an abuse of admin powers, that doesn't have justification. WyndingHeadland (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) WyndingHeadland (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: Can re-add the references and common sense that is fact against the accusation that they haven't been given. WyndingHeadland (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WyndingHeadland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reliable sources and common sense have been given and can be identified. WyndingHeadland (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That does not excuse edit warring, which you must not do even if you believe you are right - everyone believes they're right, right? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Boing! said Zebedee Edit warring is not fufilling a citation request. They were given. And deleted. WyndingHeadland (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WyndingHeadland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Edit warring is not fufilling a citation request. They were given. And deleted.

Decline reason:

You really need to read WP:EDITWAR. It doesn't matter at all if you were right. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

At the current moment an editor is changing templates from a citation request to dubious, a reverse of his first change from dubious to citation request, where there was talk page discussion that wasn't from a direct challenge, preceding sources given after a direct challenge. The user is pleading ignorance when there are direct quotes that match one of the referenced sentences, and material that obviously supports the inference of another. Whilst many sources were given for the first. There were 3 templates, and each time an admin blocks or stalls an attempt at dealing with the templates another template that can be justifiably sourced, or argued against on grounds of common sense is added. The quality of the response from admins has been very poor. WyndingHeadland (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) WyndingHeadland (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WyndingHeadland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Being told it doesn't matter if right by successive admins denying unblocking requests isn't administering a situation where another person is wrong.

Decline reason:

You have again refused to address the reasoning for your block, namely the fact you have been editwarring. At this point, you are showing an attitude that you do not want to listen. At this point, this is becoming disruptive and I'm removing talk page access for the remainder of this block. Once your block is over, please seek consensus on the talk page prior to making the edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for 7 days for persistent disruption (especially at talk pages) and edit-warring including removal of tags, at the same articles that you were previously warned about, including an administrator's noticeboard thread. It is likely that if this disruption continues that the next block may be indefinite.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=The admin is forbidding any changes by this account for no good reason. The talk page was used. The users couldn't articulate anything wrong with the verification on the talk page from a verification request template. WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WyndingHeadland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The admin is forbidding any changes by this account for no good reason. The talk page was used. The users couldn't articulate anything wrong with the verification on the talk page from a verification request template.

Decline reason:

You don't address, and apparently don't even see, the problems with your own conduct. Yes, users "articulated something wrong with the verification". If you're unable to understand the arguments brought forth by multiple other editors, that's a problem with you, not with everybody else. This doesn't even address your bizarre debating tactics regarding shoving off relevant content into separate sections, among other issues.Huon (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

WyndingHeadland (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin 2

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WyndingHeadland (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

After block reverse request turned down: What was articulated that was the problem? The topic was kept to the verification template. The verification is in black and white on google books. If the editors have any problem they are suggesting it is original research with synth. That isn't the template. If that was the template it could be the talk page discussion.

Decline reason:

Persistent abuse of unblock requests. Enough. I am revoking your talk page editing privileges for the duration of your block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: Due to your persistent abuse of unblock requests I have revoked your ability to edit your talk page. Any further unblock requests may be made via WP:UTRS. However I caution you that filing more tendentious unblock requests may be seen as disruptive in its own right and result in your block being extended. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WyndingHeadland. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]