User talk:Voice of the Walk

Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy editing here. You recently made a series of controversial changes to the Celtic nations pages and removed templates from other pages. These have all been reverted by various editors as they are controversial and should be discussed on the talk page. You may want to spend a bit of time exploring the articles on the help pages about editing pages and dealing with controversy. -- Snowded  TALK  07:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not introduce controversial material into articles without first discussing it on the article's talk page. Your edits may appear to some to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Grutness...wha?  00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic nations
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

''Although I agree with a broad part of your edits, using diplomacy on talk pages and outlining your objections (whilst citing published material) is much more likely to secure the changes you seek. Hope that helps.'' --Jza84 | Talk  00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. You are going about this completely the wrong way, even though your intentions (and some of you actual material) may be good. Simply making wholesale changes to the article without any attempt at reaching consensus is not the way forward and may end up seeing you blocked for disruptive editing. Wikipedia may encourage you to be bold, but an important part of that is knowing when to be bold and when to exercise caution. Grutness...wha?  01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again - you wrote: ''Placing an unsourced version back in, a version which is clearly a prejudice attack against the people of England and also lacks sources is clearly not appropriate. There is no sense in reverting a sourced edit which is perfectly in following with Wikipedia policy. Its sourced, from neutral sources: such as those for the language stats, and the organisations who claim there are "six Celtic nations". Also the request for citation tags in the Roman part, where minority Welsh secessionists try to rob English people of their Celtic history, is essential. Another user on the talk has said they agree with the edit points... even you have to an extent, so I'm confused as to why you decide to put back the anti-English version?''

As I pointed out, any major change like this really needs discussion on the talk page to reach consensus before it is added to an article. At the moment, that discussion is still in its infancy; it looks like it may reach a consensus, but until a few more voices have been heard it's too early to assess. As I pointed out in the talk page, a simple replacement of what is currently in the article by your text would be wrong - there needs to be some acknowledgement that the term "Celtic Nations" means different things to different people. As such, it is important to work out what needs to go into the article, what needs to be removed, and what needs to be kept from what is currently there. That should be done before any changes are made. This is far more in keeping with Wikipedia policy that removing text currently in an article to replace it wholesale. (oh, and to counter any potential thoughts of bias I may have, I have Irish ancestry on my father's side and English on my mother's - but that English ancestry is itself partially Celtic. Grutness...wha?  22:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Suspected sock puppets/Voice of the Walk. Thank you. —Angr 12:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)