User talk:Rwenonah

January 2012

Your addition to War of 1812 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not copy text straight from a book source, in this case page 167 from How to Lose a War: More Foolish Plans and Great Military Blunders by Bill Fawcett. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:War of 1812 (United States Expansionism)

You wrote on my user talk page,

I think that it was wrong to revert my edit. It is irrelevant how the author mentions the information as long as it doesn't violate copyrights,is from a reputable source, and supports the edit.As for the irrelevance of the Revoloutionary War, there is another sentence about the same treaty in the British Support For Indian Wars section,but no one appears to be attacking that.

As User:Ronald Wenonah (User talk:Ronald Wenonah), you spent many years attempting to insert a minority view about U.S. expansionism into the article, being barred twice for edit warring for your pains. This latest insertion appears to me to be a rather desperate attempt at source-shopping to support your POV. The cite is to a single throwaway sentence in a thirty-page dissertation about a different subject entirely. It therefore does not count as a reliable source when compared to works which focus on the subject in question.

You have inserted a sentence which flatly contradicts the preceding paragraph, based on your one tangential source. The sentence about the Revolutionary War is a complete non sequitur, irrelevant to the section. In short, your addition does not add to the article, and detracts from it by inserting confusing and poorly-sourced views. It will therefore be removed again. If you choose to edit-war on the matter, I will first submit a request for comment by other interested editors. If the concensus of opinion is against you, I will not hesitate to take the matter to the administrators, as I feel that over the years your edits on this subject have been generally disruptive.HLGallon (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You wrote further on my talk page:

Sorry about my change of user name, I forgot my password. However, I think that it doesn't matter how something is mentioned in a book, as long as it is there and is by a reputable source. As for the consenus, I would not trust those results.This ongoing expansionism arguement is essentially a difference between American and Canadian/British viewpoints on the war. The Canadian/British viewpoint is that the U.S wanted to annex Canada.I think that this viewpoint deserves representation. But since the Canadian population is smaller then the population of the American state of California, there are many more American editors willing to support the American viewpoint then there are Canadian/british editors willing to do the opposite(this is reflected on the page). In addition, I once angered a number of editors by putting in a page reference from the wrong book, which they took as a lie and attempt to add a POV. Another time, I accidentally violated 3RR( I didn't know about the rule). Thus, I would not trust a consensus as impartial or accurate. My view is only a minority view inside the US. In Canada/Britain it is certainly a majority view. If you would like to edit an encyclopedia oriented toward the United States, I believe there is a website called "Conservapedia" which has an American flag on the main page.

For your information, I am a British editor. I do not accept that points of view, alias "viewpoints" should dictate the content of articles. The only viewpoints which should be included are those which match the Wikipedia fundamental principles: verifiability, reliable sources, no original research and neutrality. I have contributed extensively to articles on the War of 1812. I hope I have written as neutrally and dispassionately on British triumphs as on British blunders or disasters.HLGallon (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812

Your recent editing history at War of 1812 shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. TFD (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you are not supposed to set up multiple accounts. Please see the SPI report.[1] TFD (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC) There is no doubt that catholic and French Lower Canada (Quebec) would not have been welcomed by many in the US nor would the addition of Florida have offset the addition of British North America in the mind's of many in the south but there is still more to the debate. J. C. A. Stagg whose writing is used in the article to deny that the US declared war to annex Canada states: "Yet there can be little doubt that, had the War of 1812 been a successful military venture, the Madison administration would have been reluctant to have returned occupied Canadian territory to the enemy." That is from his book Mr. Madison's War on page 4.

Stagg's comment

I am going to put the quote from Stagg on the article page. You put it on your own talk page so you know it is accurate. Now the readers can read exactly what Stagg said and come to their own conclusion. Also, you removed other editors' comments from the War of 1812 talk page and that is not something you should do. Another editor has added them back. Dwalrus (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Rwenonah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Please see reliable sources. The website that you are trying to proffer as one isn't. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really?

- (posted on Berean Hunter's talkpage in response to "Edits Wars"): "[Rwenonah, this] Certainly [is] not the first time Berean Hunter has gotten into an Edit War or abused her admin privileges..." Thewolfchild (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC) - (Correction: it turns out that BH isn't an admin. She just acts like one.)

- This comment mysteriously disappeared the next day. It seems like any and all comments that Berean Hunter finds embarrassing, regardless of how factual they may be, she simply goes and deletes them. Quite vain and sanitary, all at the same time... Thewolfchild (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion

"A couple of points: Berean Hunter isn't an administrator, and Rwenonah has been edit-warring with a number of other editors over the past year. I'm trying to help Rwenonah to understand the problem with his edits and you're not helping by dragging your apparent grudge against Berean Hunter into an unrelated matter. Please try to assume good faith. Your issue with BH appears to be a minor misunderstanding that has gotten blown out of proportion: [s]he has the right to remove material on [her] userpage if [s]he wishes. " - Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

- As do I. (hence the reason I moved your comment here) I will assume good faith to the point that you are probably a decent admin, most of the time, but here you are clearly jumping in without being informed or impartial. The "minor misunderstanding" was both created and "blown out of proportion" by Berean Hunter. She made a mistake, compounded it by making another, then made a fool out of herself by trying to blame it on me. She has since gone and tried to delete everything and anything related to the incident to cover it up.

Now I see an Edit War going on with Rwenoah, and you jumping in with a clear bias. I see no action taken against your little girlfriend "BH", while at the same time you and your admin buddies seem to continually punish Rwenoah without really providing clear reasoning, or responding to any of the counter-complaints that Rwenoah has brought forward. (yes, punish, as in "go sit in the corner and think about what you did!")

We all appreciate the work you admins do, but you need to try to stick to the principles you preach. Wikipedia should be a meritocracy, administered with total neutrality and transperency, else it become an insulated, dictatorial, cronyistic regime.

Good day. Thewolfchild (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Cont'd

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Hunting, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be soapboxing against hunting, using inappropriate sources: pleasebekind.org isn't a satisfactory source, and you have no consensus to make these changes. Please stop edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I also note that you were blocked for the same thing under a previous account, so you clearly should know better. Acroterion (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And, by my count, you've hit 3RR: as you've been blocked for that before as well, please take care not to revert again. Acroterion (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I've brought up your latest revert at WP:AN3. Acroterion (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

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.

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.

Kuru (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're simply reverting in a slow edit war now. I've set the time at 2 week in continuation of your blocks at your previous account. Kuru (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked because I was not the one who instigated the edit war. I in fact explained my planned changes on the relevant talk page and gave three days for anyone to object. No one did so, and I thus made the edits. Then someone reverted me , even though I had specifically asked for people to give some kind of notification before doing so. I replaced my edits on the page. This continued on for a large amount of time, until I recently became blocked. I feel that the block could be shortened somewhat, although I do have something of a history of this.However, I did not mean to evade blocks or block history by changing accounts, I simply forgot my password. --Rwenonah (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

We don't care why you were edit warring; you were edit warring, and that's not acceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

For what it's worth, I never thought you were abusing multiple accounts or evading scrutiny of your previous account, and I don't think Kuru thought so either: there's a clean break between accounts, so I don't see that as a concern or any kind of violation of account policy. You did, however edit-war with the previous account on two subjects and have returned to those subjects and done it again with the present account, which is why the block lengths keep getting longer. At least five different editors have objected to your edits to Hunting in the past year, so you know that there's a problem with your edits and that there's no consensus for your changes; silence doesn't give assent, nor do I see an explicit declaration that you would add the content for the fifth time if you didn't hear back on the talkpage, or it was lost in your comments. I haven't reviewed your edits to War of 1812, but given that you picked up there where you left off causes me to be concerned about your understanding of collaborative editing on a broader scale than a single subject. Acroterion (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Such is the case; I have no problem with the multiple accounts and see no evidence of block evasion. The length of the block is simply the natural progression of block lengths for repeated occurrences of the same problem. Kuru (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I in fact was not edit warring. I gave notification of my edits and asked not to be reverted without notification (I was ignored). My counterpart has undergone no punishment for actions that are equally "edit warring" and I feel that the block is overtly long. Perhaps it could be shortened somewhat? Rwenonah (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia does not do "punishment", we do prevention. Blocks are escalating in nature: your previous account was blocked for 24hrs, 48hrs then one week. The next escalation is obviously 2 weeks. It is expected that you learn the impropriety of your behaviour the first time. You have no right to "ask for it not to be reverted without notification", and you have no right to edit-war; period. You need to read WP:GAB, because further unblock requests like the ones above will lead to a lockign of this talkpage for the duration of the block (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Okay, if Wikipedia "doesn't do punishment", what is this? And more to the point, I have never been blocked for a week, so 48 hrs to 2 weeks seems a bit of a jump. About the unblock requests, I think I misunderstood the concept and made a bit of a mistake in the content . --Rwenonah (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You're being asked to use this time to reconsider your approach to editing: repeating the same behavior leads to longer blocks. Your last block on the previous account was for a week: [2]. You've interacted with a number of other editors, yet the consistent outcome has been an edit-war with whomever you encounter on two subjects. You reverted five different editors last summer, and you've done so with two recently. The constant has been you willingness to revert to your preferred version against consensus, regardless of stated objections by others. Acroterion (talk) 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)