User talk:Nahno321

May 2023
Hello, I'm Grachester. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Bangor, Gwynedd have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Grachester (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please explain how they are not constructive? I am from this area and they are not a notable person and they are not from here - fair enough to add them to where they are from but they are not from here. They are also just not notable they have created their page themselves which is a conflict of interest and breaches Wikipedia's terms and conditions. So I am correct in what I did. Unless you also live here and think you know more than i do? Then happy to meet up and discuss. Till then my edit shall remain. Nahno321 (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by coverage in reliable sources. Owen Hurcum is mentioned in several sources - all of which you removed from the article. Removing properly-sourced material from articles is vandalism. Please stop. Grachester (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the sources and you will see that this 'notable' person is not from Bangor. Therefore I am still correct. Also please read the talk on the page - multiple people (I'm assuming most are from the local area) are letting Wikipedia know this is not a notable person from Bangor. So stop trying to force the issue. Nahno321 (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * People don't have to be born in Bangor to be notably associated with it. Being the mayor of Bangor is an extremely notable connection to the city. John Francon Williams and Owain Owain weren't born in Bangor either, for example. It makes me wonder what criteria you are actually using to object to Hurcum. Grachester (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't like what your implying there. Nah totally agree they are also not from Bangor therefore should also be removed and relocated to the most accurate page. I had no awareness of they as they are before my time which is why I did not pick up on them. But yes it totally agree. They are not from Bangor and obviously not very notable. Are you from the local area? What are your credentials for being allowed to dictate what is correct when you know nothing about the area obviously. You do not own or control wikipedia so please stop acting like it. Nahno321 (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claim that Owain Owain is "not very notable" makes it clear you are not interested in the quality of the article. People do not need to be born in Bangor to appear in the article or the list of Notable people. Continuing to vandalise the article by removing properly sourced material will lead to you being blocked from editing. My only"credentials" are that I follow the rules of Wikipedia. You are a single-purpose account that is pushing your personal point of view, and that is not allowed on Wikipedia. Grachester (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bangor, Gwynedd. 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. Grachester (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bangor, Gwynedd, you may be blocked from editing. Grachester (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bangor, Gwynedd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.I know others have already warned you, but you are on 3 reverts now, so only fair to warn you that one more will get you blocked. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one warring the other person is. How can I raise this constructively then. As another talk piece on the bangor page raises the page as it currently is is really over stating their contribution and nobility. Just feels like I'm being beat down by people who know how to use and abuse Wikipedia. If i knew how to report the other person I would. My friend got an article in the local paper for converting a campervan - can i add them to notable people as long as i cite the source? Because thats about as much sense as this makes. Nahno321 (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So the first thing to say is that if you make an edit and it gets reverted, use the article's talk page to discuss the issue. This will draw in more editors who will look at the issue and a consensus opinion will emerge.
 * The second thing is that Wikipedia always goes off the sources. If information gets significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, then it is notable for inclusion. We will not always agree that it is notable, but the point is that the writers of the sources thought it notable enough to write the sources. That is just a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. We don't publish our own views, we follow mainstream reliable sources.
 * The third thing to say is that despite this, there is a lot of room for editors to interact over the quality of the sources, or the appropriateness of the information in an article, or the amount of due weight it has. There are lots of policies on this, and you can't be expected to know them, so feel free to discuss, but be aware there may be good reasons why something is included or not. Be open to persuasion, evaluate what is said and respond. Wikipedia thrives on good discussion.
 * And to take the campervan example, no this would not make it as an article because the source would be primary (newspapers are generally primary sources) not secondary (many books, journal articles that are not primary research etc.) Also there would not be significant coverage unless his campervan was getting national attention or a lot of attention. The article might not even be considered reliable or independent. So no, that wouldn't make it in. Whether arguments could be made that this individual is not notable are not something I can judge - I am unfamiliar with the subject - but those would be things you might be looking at. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok so break this down for me:
 * You say that about the talk page but nothing came from the last person trying to discuss this.
 * Ok when I look up the notable people section it say 'born and/or spent the majority of their life' and they have done neither so don't fit the category so the addition is incorrect? I would really value your explanation of that.
 * The reported person only has primary citations so to use your own argument against you...
 * Look forward to your reply, you have explained things very rationally. Nahno321 (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)