User talk:Invaluable22

Welcome!
Hi Invaluable22! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. The reason I joined was because my book was extensively plagiarised and I needed to correct that. Can I please draw your attention to the contributor jamesmcardle. This person contributes to a large number of entries. If his treatment of the one entry I am involved with is anything to go by, his contributions rely heavily on lifting large amounts of material direct from published sources without citation or acknowledgement, and patching them together. This is in direct breach of copyright generally and Wikipedia's citation and copyright protocols. In addition, because he has no direct knowledge of or expertise in the subject, he cannot discern whether the source is reliable or correct and the the entry is therefore erroneous. An example in the Christian Waller entry is that he cited the opinion of one critic, made a long time ago, that the artist was a poor draughtsman. This is totally incorrect and no other source would agree; in fact she was a superb draughtsman with works in all major collections. Additionally, a copyright art work was inserted without authorisation. I have rectified these defects in this entry, but feel strongly that other entries by this contributor need to be checked and he needs to be advised of the necessity to adhere to copyright and citation rules. As he is a former academic, he must be well aware of these. I note that in his personal statement he states that he does not concern himself with these and leaves it to Wikipedia to sort them out. This is very poor. Thank you. Invaluable22 (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

April 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. HeyElliott (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. HeyElliott (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Invaluable22! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Dylan Mulvaney several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Elgin Marbles
Hello there

I reverted your recent changes to the lead for the following reasons: 1) The lead already states that a British parliamentary inquiry found that the marbles were removed legally. 2) It isn't just "some in Greece" who dispute this, it is a large number of legal scholars over the world. The article explains this. 3) There has been international controversy over the removal since 1835, therefore it is a longstanding controversy.

Please note that the lead is supposed to be a concise and accurate summary of the article as it stands. If you think it isn't, please take your concerns to the Talk Page. You will find various discussions there, including a current one about whether the name Elgin Marbles is appropriate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)