User talk:AlbionJack

Infobox military conflict
I provided you with a link to Template:Infobox military conflict. Did you read it? 'result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive".' Mojoworker (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

British Empire
You are restoring contested edits. Per WP:BRD please self revert and take to the talk page -Snowded TALK 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no deadlock, per WP:BRD there is no need.AlbionJack (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Consitution vs Guerriere
I have once again reverted your addition to the lead:


 * There was a large disparity in strength between the two frigates; Constitution was almost half as large again than Guerriere, had a far larger crew, a main deck battery of 24-pounder guns to Guerriere's 18 pounders, and was more strongly constructed than the French-built Guerriere, which was also in need of a refit. Although the Royal Navy was used to its home built frigates defeating French or Spanish ships of greater strength, Guerriere was a French built frigate and therefore not built as well as Royal Navy frigates, Constitution's victory was not surprising.

This is laying on the American advantages with a trowel, and its tone is therefore unacceptably POV. The disparity in strength is discussed in the body of the article, and a single sentence or phrase would suffice in any lead. You mention that the lead is copypasted from the War of 1812 article. Note that Wikipedia should not be a source for itself (WP:CIRCULAR). Finally, the assertion that "Constitution's" victory was not surprising" is a later, unsourced discussion. As the article and sources make plain, the Royal Navy had become used to its 38-gun frigates defeating the 44-gun frigates of the French and Spanish navies over the previous couple of decades, and Captain Dacres of "Guerriere" (and Carden of "Macedonian", who had not heard of "Guerriere's" defeat), and the RN generally, were unpleasantly surprised that the USN failed to accomodate this tradition. You are making original arguments which, being in the lead, are unduly prominent in the article. HLGallon (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Altoona child sexual abuse scandal
Hi thee. Can you tell me where the writing at Altoona child sexual abuse scandal came from? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Altoona child sexual abuse scandal
Hello, AlbionJack,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Altoona child sexual abuse scandal should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Articles for deletion/Altoona child sexual abuse scandal.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So this is a sock account? TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quite, this is my account, I am a journalist and professional writer and created this account to continue making good edits. As stated it was confirmed it was the same IP as previous and immediately blocked per sock However upon review I was unblocked due to the fact I have made good faith edits and continue do so, admittance of previous failings occurred and I was able to continue as I were. Restoring a notable article is no need for a block when all my edits have been sound.AlbionJack (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In fact I have displayed perfect behaviour in line with unblock requests, hence why I was unblocked in the first place.
 * the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
 * the block is no longer necessary because you
 * understand what you have been blocked for,
 * will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
 * will make useful contributions instead.
 * Thanks AlbionJack (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)