User talk:31NG10

Welcome!
Hello, 31NG10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Sorry for reverting. The Belfast Telegraph and the BBC are good ources, but you have to reference to them, best with link, title, author, date, accessdate, and of course that publisher name. Mind-reading is none of my abilities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Readers are provided with a link to the BelTel and BBC articles. 31NG10 (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding: you are new, much to learn, - one thing is essential: when something is reverted, don't revert back! Even if you are right. Discuss it on the article's talk page, saying I want to add this, the source is there. Reverting back causes edit war. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC). Patronising people is not the way to get them to come round to your way of thinking. 31NG10 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

While it won't be a surprise to learn that I do not agree with the perception of my edits to Mr Packham's page, I am happy to refrain from editing that page again. However, I would add that the page at presents reads as a hagiography rather than a biography; any criticisms of Mr Packham (and there are many, from numerous reputable sources) have been expunged, leaving only those contributions that paint him in a positive light. I would simply ask at this time that administrators consider this and ensure that the article remains balanced.

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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:. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Substantially similar activity and username to. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I havenoted that it is not possible to delete an account, but I have managed to log into 31NGMW and disable all notification features etc.


 * is it sufficient that they agree to only use this account, or are there other issues? 331dot (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was going to answer that simply blocking the old account would suffice, but after examining the contribution history, I have some concerns about the SPA-nature of this user's contributions, suggests a single purpose of adding negative information to the article about Chris Packham. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

What do you want to edit about if unblocked? Would you agree to not edit about Chris Packham? 331dot (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the block for abusing multiple accounts was a mistake, as I cannot see any way in which the use of two accounts has been abusive. The first account had stopped editing long before the second one came into use, and there has been no attempt to hide the fact that the two accounts belong to the same person. However, I concur with 's comment above, and with 's suggestion of refraining from editing on the topic involved. Almost all of this editor's editing has consisted of attempts to make an article conform to a particular point of view, at times doing so by presenting opinions or judgements as facts. That may well have been done unintentionally: when one has strong feelings on a matter one may well sincerely perceive things as facts which to outsiders appear judgements, with the result that one cannot edit objectively on the subject, even if one sincerely intends to do so. I therefore think that any unblock should be conditional on not editing on that particular topic. I also note that the editor's editing has repeatedly consisted of reverting other editor's contributions, including at times repeating the same edit which has been reverted, to an extent that he or she cannot be unaware that he or she has been editing in ways not supported by consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

While it won't be a surprise to learn that I do not agree with the perception of my edits to Mr Packham's page, I am happy to refrain from editing that page again. However, I would add that the page at presents reads as a hagiography rather than a biography; any criticisms of Mr Packham (and there are many, from numerous reputable sources) have been expunged, leaving only those contributions that paint him in a positive light. I would simply ask at this time that administrators consider this and ensure that the article remains balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31NG10 (talk • contribs)


 * Since you are agreeing to not edit about Mr. Packham, what are you going to edit about? 331dot (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, at the time I blocked 31NG10 I also extend-confirmed-protected the article because it seemed that the bulk of contributions (not just 31NG10's) were from editors with a COI or at least a non-neutral POV. I have no objection if 31NG10 proposes changes on the article's talk page like anyone else who wouldn't be able to edit due to the protection. I notice that a more experienced editor has recently removed some unreliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Difficult for me to answer that question. You'll see from my history that I have previously edited the Carrickfergus page; this was something I read that I felt needed editing. It would be pages that I happen to read but feel need to be edited, that I woud contribute to. I read Wikipedia widely, so cannot give specific pages that I would edit.

Discretionary sanctions
FDW777 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Also the Bobby Storey article, as well as other Troubles related articles, is under a 1-revert-restriction, meaning no more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period. For the avoidance of any doubt, your edit was a revert. FDW777 (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please immediately revert your second removal of volunteer made in this edit, or a report for edit-warring will be made. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wishes to ban me for using neutral language that is unlikely to cause offence to either Nationalist or Unionist communities, that is your decision. If you prefer to use sectarian terminology, go ahead and take whatever action you wish, but know that it reflects very poorly on you. 31NG10 (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)