Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:58, 1 April 2012

January 2012

Your addition to War of 1812 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please do not copy text straight from a book source, in this case page 167 from How to Lose a War: More Foolish Plans and Great Military Blunders by Bill Fawcett. Binksternet (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:War of 1812 (United States Expansionism)

You wrote on my user talk page,

I think that it was wrong to revert my edit. It is irrelevant how the author mentions the information as long as it doesn't violate copyrights,is from a reputable source, and supports the edit.As for the irrelevance of the Revoloutionary War, there is another sentence about the same treaty in the British Support For Indian Wars section,but no one appears to be attacking that.

As User:Ronald Wenonah (User talk:Ronald Wenonah), you spent many years attempting to insert a minority view about U.S. expansionism into the article, being barred twice for edit warring for your pains. This latest insertion appears to me to be a rather desperate attempt at source-shopping to support your POV. The cite is to a single throwaway sentence in a thirty-page dissertation about a different subject entirely. It therefore does not count as a reliable source when compared to works which focus on the subject in question.

You have inserted a sentence which flatly contradicts the preceding paragraph, based on your one tangential source. The sentence about the Revolutionary War is a complete non sequitur, irrelevant to the section. In short, your addition does not add to the article, and detracts from it by inserting confusing and poorly-sourced views. It will therefore be removed again. If you choose to edit-war on the matter, I will first submit a request for comment by other interested editors. If the concensus of opinion is against you, I will not hesitate to take the matter to the administrators, as I feel that over the years your edits on this subject have been generally disruptive.HLGallon (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You wrote further on my talk page:

Sorry about my change of user name, I forgot my password. However, I think that it doesn't matter how something is mentioned in a book, as long as it is there and is by a reputable source. As for the consenus, I would not trust those results.This ongoing expansionism arguement is essentially a difference between American and Canadian/British viewpoints on the war. The Canadian/British viewpoint is that the U.S wanted to annex Canada.I think that this viewpoint deserves representation. But since the Canadian population is smaller then the population of the American state of California, there are many more American editors willing to support the American viewpoint then there are Canadian/british editors willing to do the opposite(this is reflected on the page). In addition, I once angered a number of editors by putting in a page reference from the wrong book, which they took as a lie and attempt to add a POV. Another time, I accidentally violated 3RR( I didn't know about the rule). Thus, I would not trust a consensus as impartial or accurate. My view is only a minority view inside the US. In Canada/Britain it is certainly a majority view. If you would like to edit an encyclopedia oriented toward the United States, I believe there is a website called "Conservapedia" which has an American flag on the main page.

For your information, I am a British editor. I do not accept that points of view, alias "viewpoints" should dictate the content of articles. The only viewpoints which should be included are those which match the Misplaced Pages fundamental principles: verifiability, reliable sources, no original research and neutrality. I have contributed extensively to articles on the War of 1812. I hope I have written as neutrally and dispassionately on British triumphs as on British blunders or disasters.HLGallon (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812

Your recent editing history at War of 1812 shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. TFD (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, you are not supposed to set up multiple accounts. Please see the SPI report. TFD (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC) There is no doubt that catholic and French Lower Canada (Quebec) would not have been welcomed by many in the US nor would the addition of Florida have offset the addition of British North America in the mind's of many in the south but there is still more to the debate. J. C. A. Stagg whose writing is used in the article to deny that the US declared war to annex Canada states: "Yet there can be little doubt that, had the War of 1812 been a successful military venture, the Madison administration would have been reluctant to have returned occupied Canadian territory to the enemy." That is from his book Mr. Madison's War on page 4.

Stagg's comment

I am going to put the quote from Stagg on the article page. You put it on your own talk page so you know it is accurate. Now the readers can read exactly what Stagg said and come to their own conclusion. Also, you removed other editors' comments from the War of 1812 talk page and that is not something you should do. Another editor has added them back. Dwalrus (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hunting. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)