User talk:K1ngstowngalway1

Please fix your talk page

When you attempted to archive the page you've created multiple redirects. It's made it extremely difficult to communicate with standard tools. Please also use edit summaries. Mason (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure how to archive it or to fix whatever mistakes I've made in doing so. K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly its probably easiest to make a request to move your talk page [1] back to this location and then follow the instructions to use User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo. Its important to move the page back to restore the talk page edit history. Mason (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to John Farquharson (Jesuit), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. See WP:BRD, again. Do not war when your edit is reverted. Discuss and await consensus. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Judique, Nova Scotia, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Alexander Cameron (priest)

added a link pointing to Manhunt

John Lorne Campbell

added a link pointing to Prosody

Welcome to Woop Woop

added a link pointing to Commune

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eigg

Per the above, please use edit summaries. I have fixed one reference you added but I may remove the section about Hugh Mackinnon unless you can use a referencing system that is similar to the rest of the article. Ben Mac Dui 16:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Big Fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defect.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Hello. I'm letting you know that your recent edits on Big Fish have been reverted. You did not provide edit summaries, which is one of the basic things you need to do when editing, as they let others know the reason for your edits. Please do not make the same edits again, or you may be blocked from editing. You are welcome to start a conversation on the Big Fish talk page, where you can propose your edits and get feedback from other editors. Thank you. Wafflewombat (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked repeatedly to provide edit summaries (see above), including by myself here (though you blanked that post) and in my own edit summaries, when addressing edits of yours. If you do not understand the purpose of them, read WP:ES. Even after this latest request you consistently fail to provide them. Even if you don't care about co-operating with other editors, don't you appreciate how suspicious this looks, particularly as your edits are often questionable or controversial? Oh will you please respect the community and provide explanations for each edit? Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burning of convents in Spain (1931), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Calderón de la Barca.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Traditionalist Catholicism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Pbritti (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

I'm sorry to double-up on your talk page, but I've noticed your editing demonstrates a variety of issues. While you make many good faith contributions, I've noticed substantial instances of original research and unsourced content. Additionally, you fail to utilize an edit summary on many of your edits. Overall, I would encourage you to embrace Wikipedia best practices. If you need any help, please let me know. Thanks for your long tenure on the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always tended to omit edit summaries out of forgetfulness, but have been trying of late to use them more often, as well as the other things you mentioned. I noticed you do a lot here related to the Catholic Church and it's history, so thank you for doing that, as I do, too, and it's easy to feel isolated here. As you've offered assistance, I've been running into severe difficulties from other editors while attempting to add information relating to the history of the Catholic Church in Scotland and particularly with Scottish Sainthood candidate Alexander Cameron (priest). I try very hard to be as fair and balanced as possible and to get to the bottom of what happened historically and why, but certain other editors have been utterly brutal, particularly with the latter article. And I don't just mean deleting unsourced info or original research, I'm talking about calling info even from scholarly University publications "unreliable" and trying to get me blacklisted because they don't want any of it to be true or for interest in it to spread. At times, it can feel like being on the losing end of cancel culture on social media. So if you could offer any assistance, I would be deeply grateful.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scotland#Bloating_in_Gaels_articles, amongst other places. Numerous articles are noted, similarly affected by the multiple issues noted in the initial post of this thread, and more. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If forgetfulness is the main cause of your omission of edit summaries all you need to do is, per Help:Preferences, go to your Preferences page via Special:Preferences, click on the 'editing' menu and choose "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". However, that is only one of the reasons for your "severe difficulties". We all have areas of interest and no-one begrudges you yours and your seemingly comprehensive library of related texts. Something you do need to understand however is that the aim of a given article is not to write the maximum possible information about the topic and any and all related matters but rather to focus on the essentials. This is the reason for the discussion Mutt Lunker refers to and why your fellow editors feel the need to trim back some of your contributions. Ben Mac Dui 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Its more than some and more than merely being trimmed back. It's been total war with no holds barred, hence my references to cancel culture on social media.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actively demonstrating your intention to spurn edit summaries and to show contempt for concerns about your packing of articles with an excess of material? You uncover the latest find and shoehorn it wherever it might fit, in multiple articles if you can, today's activity illustrative of your MO: [2] [3] Per MOS:QUOT: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". You are constructing unfocused agglomerations of lengthy unsummarised, unparaphrased, largely peripherally-pertinent block quotes. This is not what an article should be. WP:COPYVIO is less my concern than the poor quality of the resultant articles but this must also be an issue with these quote farms. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the frustration at the occasional knee-jerk removal of sources associated with practicing Christians writing academically about Christian topics—a number of scriptural articles have been mauled by hypersectarians off all stripes—but I must agree with Mutt Lunker. A substantial number of your additions are block quotes that should be abbreviated in Wikipedia's summary style. Excessive content often can diminish a non-expert's understanding. It's a common problem that I'm sometimes guilty of, too (I'm planning to trim Ludwell–Paradise House sometime during the next week). I would encourage you to keep your head high and keep editing, but please adopt a couple best practices. If you ever want a book, I have my own library you can request from, much of which isn't listed there. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are still doing this routinely, at multiple articles. Wikipedia is not a scrapbook of lengthy quotes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define lengthy.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You routinely insert quotes, often multiply in one article, which could in no way be described as, again, brief. That said, Wikipedia is not a scrapbook of quotes, brief or lengthy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question. With regard to quotes, how long is too long?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you after a word count or something? If you understand again (again) "brief", what is not that, as adjudged by a reasonable person. Several of these have indicated above their view as to whether your quotations are brief. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am requesting a word count or something very similar.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable length is probably no longer than 35 words. Another reasonable rule of thumb is the old SMS/Twitter limit of 140 characters. If you have a quote longer than that, summarize it. If you really think that the article needs the quote and you can't reasonably summarize it without losing a fundamental aspect of the original version's content, then consider a quote box like I used on Free and Candid Disquisitions#Contents. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I tend to edit using a smart phone rather than a laptop. So figuring out things like how to keep track of word or character count is not something I yet know how to do, but I don't enjoy the immediate reverts and Twitter mob-style attacks I have been receiving. Thank you for these quote guidelines, as I hope things will be more peaceful from now on.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't enjoy repeated characteristic problems with your edits being addressed, please pay heed to the assistance you are being given and take more care over them.

As has been pointed out before, you have a tendency to add off-topic material. I don't remember having directed you to WP:COATRACK before, so indicate it now as illustrative. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you, Mr Lunker, is to be less likely to dehumanize other editors in your own mind so you can seek to cancel them and drive them to suicidal ideation, as they may genuinely be acting in good faith and truthful ignorance of the unwritten rules you think they are knowingly violating.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask that you turn that around to reflect on how you appear to be making further assumptions about "Mr" me. That I, amongst others, am indicating the very-much-written Wikipedia policies that pertain to the matters under discussion indicate my good faith assumption that you are in truthful ignorance of them. Whether, thus directed, you are prepared to comply, further informs regarding good faith. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 54 straight edits to this article, many very substantial and with characteristics that multiple editors have raised with you as problematic, including the return, again, of material that is contested or excessive in its expanse. Despite repeated requests that you do so, there is not a solitary edit summary to explain your intent or justification. I haven't looked in any detail as yet but I see an apparently similar pattern of editing at multiple other articles in the last few days. You are chronically impervious to meaningful engagement with other editors, showing consistent contempt for the notion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Glengarry County, Ontario

added a link pointing to Georgia

The Star-Spangled Banner

added a link pointing to Halifax

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Farquharson (Jesuit)

With this edit at John Farquharson (Jesuit), you wrote: "He remained there until being appointed perfect of studies at the Scots College in Douai in 1753." What was your source to support this? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. I added a source citation to the article. An article in Innes Review.K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when a good faith question is asked on your talk page, please answer that question on your talk page. Thank you for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

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! -- mikeblas (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Kristubhagavatam into Christian Poetry. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the material being copied has been there for a long time, how would one even know which editor to credit?K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the diffs were, but I can understand the confusion. As the boilerplate warning above notes, an option for articles with ancient content with unclear authorship is an edit summary saying copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you need further help, let me know. I'm sorry for you encountering so many concerns, but I hope this clarifies things. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti is right -- it's quite adequate to just name the article. See WP:COPYING for more details. -- mikeblas (talk) mikeblas (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!K1ngstowngalway1 (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]