Cavalierfawkes
Welcome! edit
|
Disambiguation link notification for February 12 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Battle of Bealach nam Broig
- added links pointing to George Munro and Hugh Fraser
- Raid on Grand Pré
- added a link pointing to Native Americans
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Will remember next time Cavalierfawkes (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I might add that, as the vast majority of the edits you have made have been reverted by other editors, you might question whether your editing has been more disruptive than useful in general. Urselius (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice edit
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
SN54129 14:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Catlemur. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Battle of Larissa have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.--Catlemur (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022 edit
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Gog the Mild. Thank you. SN54129 20:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Making changes to articles edit
Hi there. If you think that there are changes which need to be made to an article, there are ways to arrange for this to happen. Making rapid mass changes to just the infoboxes is not it. Almost everyone would like to have another enthusiastic editor on board, but learning the Wikipedian ropes is a steep learning curve. As a start can I suggest that you read some of the policies which have been pointed out? You may wish to put Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history on your watch list. You may wish to work in detail on an article or two - the MilHist talk page is a good place to seek advice or help. The WP:MOS is a near-bottomless pit which will repeatedly trip you up - all I can suggest is that you reconcile yourself to this. If you have the sources, maybe start bringing articles to assessment requests for independent assessment. Just some ideas - you are clearly keen to get your teeth into things and these may be some pointers as to how you could do this in a way which would be more long lasting. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nice edit summary on Battle of Ballyshannon (1247), thanks for that. Do you have a source to support your opinion? I'm just asking, I have no intention of reverting it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- On a connected note, I did some work on Battle of Hieton after you added that very respectable infobox - thanks. I got a bit carried away - it is a topic I know a little about - and look how it ended up. In particular note the density and variety of the citations and how there is nothing in either the lead nor the infobox which isn't in the main article. If you spot any exceptions to that, let me know and we'll sort it out between us. I had it independently assessed and it came in as B class. Basic, but satisfactory I think for a battle about which so little is known. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your edit to Clan Cameron, I note there was no edit summary. Do you have a source, of any sort, to support one of the clan's allies being "Clan Donald" and not Clan MacDonald as you have changed it from? Because if you don't, you are liable to get reverted. Thanks.
- I am going to leave to one side for now the fact that you are WP:EWing by making that change again without first discussing it per WP:BRD.
- Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 19 edit
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Normans in Ireland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Marmion and Joyce.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
EDSUMM edit
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Guliolopez (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Fehufanga. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to User:Gog the Mild—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Girth Summit (blether) 12:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)