User talk:Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken

Yes, I agree that we should clear it up in talk, which is why I have being engaging there. The person who reverts washout addressing it prior is you, and as I said in my revert, you're welcome to use talk to sort it out. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. The latest talk page comments are all from me.

MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Incorrect, just check the time, you revert first, then comment. That's not how it should be done, and if you are able to see your replies, I'm sure you can see mines Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly this is complete nonsense. You literally just put this message in here after I requested the same thing, for you to treat the matter in talk prior to reverting, which to be honest given the fact that you are not giving any factual reasoning behind it, seems to be personal. Do not engage any further with me, maybe you can explain directly to the people (you can clearly check their names in view history, obviously.) who accepted my edits why you are blanking the whole thing each time you see it. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you revert again, and then talk. Engage in conversation first, provide examples of the issues you see, then proceed to revert if not corrected, which, as anybody can tell by you recent action which is revert an article with no sustained reason at all, and then post this in my talk page, which ironically is the same thing I just requested you to in the article. I will revert it one last time. Next time you engage with it make sure to explain why you are blanking it to the users who accepted it as well. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not required to edit in the exact order you prefer. On the other hand, you are required to comply with Wikipedia policy, particularly

MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would love to see where I said that I want you to edit in the order I prefer, it's the order the message you ironically posted in my talk page after I made the exact same request to you, enunciates. So please, do give me examples of things you said are unsourced, and I will source them. That easy, last time I say it. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on the talk page, the whole thing is unsourced with the exception of a single date.

MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You mean Florida's colonization date? ah, maybe you should read the entire section you are reading to see that the literal Wikipedia pages linked in the paragraph describe what is being said. That's why it's linked. Name any, choose randomly, and it will be there. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself, see

MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The point of linking is to provide the possibility of expanding on what you read if you wish to do so. Wikipedians have done so for ages. Linking Wikipedia pages, in things they are summarizing, ordering, or exemplifying, which in many occasions do not require a source, because the same linked article, already has the sources that back it up, so instead of copy pasting the sources from the article you link, you just link it. This is no news and everyone in the wiki knows about it, checking your profile you have a history of doing this exact same thing to almost all cases you have attended. You should request a source, yes, of course, but if there's an article about it that explains and sources what you are saying, there's no need to copy paste the same sources from the article to another, you just link it as an expansion of what you are saying, it's been done since forever. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

which in many occasions do not require a source - You have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia is written. This same misunderstanding is also at the root of why other editors are voting to delete your other article. You must read

MrOllie (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I do understand how they are done around here. You can quote me saying whatever you would like, but the reason I said that is because of what you chose to omit, which I will say again: "which in many occasions do not require a source, because the same linked article, already has the sources that back it up, so instead of copy pasting the sources from the article you link, you just link it. This is no news and everyone in the wiki knows about it, checking your profile you have a history of doing this exact same thing to almost all cases you have attended. You should request a source, yes, of course, but if there's an article about it that explains and sources what you are saying, there's no need to copy paste the same sources from the article to another, you just link it as an expansion of what you are saying, it's been done since forever." Give me an argument for that, not just a sentence you chose to highlight without including it's context. As an addon to this, tell me, haven't Wikipedians done exactly, what I'm explaining and innumerable amounts of articles have applied it?

And as for the article I'm creating, no, if you read that's not the reason they want it deleted. What they say can be summarized in "But Spanish wars of independence article exists, why this article? I cant understand the point enunciated in the title" And I have already replied to that close to 6 times if I'm not mistaken, sadly the same thing over and over because there's an impediment on people to read what others have already said and not ridicule themselves by arguing the same thing, that was already addressed. And by the way, the article I'm making has close to 20 sources, sources that are there because obviously they are required to identify what is being said, and also because the other articles of the mentioned event do not mention the new information added, which requires, in consequence sources. The ones that can be verified by clicking in the linked articles which have the sources of the claims, are not sourced redundantly (copy and pasting a source from a linked article to your edit) because the linked article already had the sources, that's why the same sources are not copy and pasted, and instead the article who amplifies on what you are saying, explains it and has them specifically noted for what you say, are linked. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're in

MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Go for a walk in random articles present in recent changes or, if you wish, use the randomizer. You will see everyone has been doing what I've said, many consider it redundant, it's not just me doing so, and I see why they do it, and it's understandable. Since you have eagle eyed the Americans article against the practice a lot of members do here in Wikipedia (since a long long time a go), I'll, at some point, add the sources instead of linkage even though there are already in those articles, and yes, they are specifically referred to. Have a good day. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Americans. 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 at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Favonian (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, honestly I didn't intend to send that edit, it was my pc that as soon as I turned it on sent the edit which had been idling in my pc for like 5 hours after this stuff I already said what I was going to do, that edit was just idling and I forgot about it's existence, which was made prior to the talk here. So I undid it snce I'm going to keep my word. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But it apparently didn't manage to get undone, now it's. Which is alright given that was my intention anyway. Mr.Editsthenaddanunderscoretoseeifthenameisnottaken (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you cancel discarded edits before you go AFK!

They just couldn't stand well sustained responses:

There is currently a discussion at

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]