User talk:GwydionM

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Welcome to WikiProject Middle-earth!
Hello, ! Thank you for joining WikiProject Middle-earth and contributing to improve Tolkien-related articles. We are glad to have you join in the effort!

Finland pamphlet
Nick Cohen has tracked down or borrowed a copy ("I've read it twice", What's Left, 2007, Harper Perennial (pbk), p241). He has referred to this elsewhere also. In What's Left Cohen also cites this blog entry from Oliver Kamm. Philip Cross (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--GwydionM (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ma Haide
Hi Gwydion, I saw 2 notifications with thanks from you. Are you related to Ma Haide? Please take a look at the talk page of Ma Haide. SWP13 (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not even remotely related, being English and Welsh. But I thought he did good work.--GwydionM (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)--GwydionM (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

October 2018
Your recent editing history at The Notion Club Papers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I reacted to people who ignored the sources I had given.--GwydionM (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * On the talk page, I have shown details, including the fact that I did not originate the reference to the matter. Merely tidied up something I was already aware of.--GwydionM (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Bernard Cornwell
Just no time to do what is needed to check the facts, sorry. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  12:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

August 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Annexation; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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: 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. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * It is a single person who has not even bothered with a page of their own. Someone who removed a long-standing item.  What discussion is needed?  --GwydionM (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Orphans of the Sky, you may be blocked from editing. Eric talk 16:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Me, disruptive? As of 16th August it said "These works contain one of the earliest fictional depictions of a generation ship."  You mauled the grammar, Eric.  And I see no evidence anyone agrees with you!--GwydionM (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Rewi Alley TalkPage
Hi GwydionM; I've started a discussion at Rewi Alley TalkPage about the Views of China and New Zealand section, where the unbroken quote of nearly a thousand words is the entire section. Cheers, ch (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article Carnival Row. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. -- / Alex /21  06:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Help me!
Please help me with the issue of spoilers on character listings. This arise for Carnival Row, but may be more general.

As I say on the Talk Page, one would expect to find spoilers in summaries and discussions of endings. But not on character listings for series.

If the policy is unclear, it needs to be clarified. But I think most list of characters are careful not to give anything away.

--GwydionM (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Glad to help! I have described the guideline to you on the talk page. All the best! -- / Alex /21  07:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you take pride in being stupid? Because it is obviously stupid to have spoilers in the Cast list, when the episode guides do not allow them.--GwydionM (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * And that is your personal opinions. Nothing "does not allow them". Gain a consensus for it. -- / Alex /21  14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Easter Rising
Hey GwydionM. Thanks for the appreciation on the World War I casualties talk page. I see you've made a foray into the discussion on the Easter Rising talk page. As you can tell, I've tried using sources and logic to convince them that it was part of WW1, and is considered so by many people, but it was fruitless. I'm kinda new to Wikipedia, but I think the only way to force their hand, and bring about any logical change, is if some sort of dispute resolution or vote is taken (most effective if the MilHistory Wikiproject is contacted, IMO). The editors seem to be wedded to some really odd form of Irish nationalism that excludes the idea of any external historical influence, and will refuse for any reason any change regarding that. What do you think? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I have said my piece. I have other things to be getting on with.

Adding or re-adding unsourced material to articles
Please don't add unsourced materials to articles, as you did om this edit. See Verifiability. Neutralitytalk 17:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Do you NEVER check facts? What I did was restore stuff that had been there for ages.  --GwydionM (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, you restored unsourced material. Neutralitytalk 22:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Fu Xi at Peterborough.jpg


The file File:Fu Xi at Peterborough.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "orphaned image, no encyclopedic use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I added it to the man's page. Hope this is OK now.--GwydionM (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Please maintain neutrality
You are getting very heated up, Sir. You keep removing sourced material from the page Annexation. Your language is getting very heated, like here where you type in ALL-CAPS: "STOP POSTING LIES! TIBET WAS ALWAYS LEGALLY PART OF CHINA"

You also tell me I "do not have the guts to register" and engage in divisive and offensive discourse. I would kindly ask you to refrain from personal attacks as this is not appreciated and, frankly, highly offensive to my person.

Kind regards,

82.73.99.163 (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. 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:. Woody (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Moved here from my own talk page. I will leave it for an independent admin to assess the unblock. Note I don't see you have any comprehension that doing 6 reverts in about 2 hours is wrong despite the numerous historic warnings about edit warring. Woody (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am the other person involved in the edit-war. I wish to apologise for my behavior, I just did not like how [User:GwydionM|GwydionM]] kept removing sourced material without showing any willingness to discuss the sources or his reasons for removing or, not accepting any feedback from other editors. I am sorry if I offended anyone with breaking a rule and will not contest being blocked from editing the specific page. I suggest we use the week wisely to come to an agreement, ideally involving other editors. Hopefully we can solve this problem in a civil way without any vandalism or edit-warring. 82.73.99.163 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

March 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Orphans of the Sky. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.  Please don't keep making reverts without discussing the issue on the article's talkpage. Eric talk 17:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Proposed deletion of The Stowaway (2014 film)


The article The Stowaway (2014 film) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: The Stowaway (2014 film) – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. hinnk (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of The Stowaway (2014 film) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Stowaway (2014 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Stowaway (2014 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. hinnk (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A note of appreciation
I have been working on the Third Front article and reviewed the page history. Thank you for creating this article all the way back in 2006. Your edit summary at the time noted that it was an understudied topic. You were quite correct and quite ahead of the times with your focus! JArthur1984 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks

September 2023
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:The Midwich Cuckoos (TV series). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaroslav Hunka, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ken Croswell


The article Ken Croswell has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"unregistered"?
It may be a sensible comment, but it's uncited and OR.

And what led you to describe me as 'someone unregistered'? DS (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought I saw. If I made an error, sorry.--GwydionM (talk) 07:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The Marching Morons, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * IMDb and TVTropes aren't reliable sources per WP:RS/IMDb and WP:SPS, respectively. DonIago (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)