User talk:Mikesiva

Hello, I'm Philip Cross. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Jewdas have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Jewdas. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Good reason were given for the reverts, Mikesiva--please read the edit summaries. In a nutshell, you're adding commentary which is really only valid if sourced to high-quality publications. RT and the Daily Mail are not high-quality sources, and they're not even considered reliable (see WP:RS). Drmies (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the edits are ridiculous. The RT one was just highlighting the humour used by Jewdas, which the British media curiously choose to ignore. But, fine, you can remove that if you have something against RT....The edit in the "History" is partly to correct poor sentence construction, with regards to the sentence starting with "That...". I'm merely pointing where that reference to "sewage" is coming from. Since that "sewage" comment is taken out of context, then surely it's appropriate to put where it came from? Or do we only allow one side of the story in Wikipedia? Mikesiva (talk) 18:16,

The third sentence is from a British Jewish comedian, in defence of Jewdas, after criticism from Lansman and other British Jews. Is Baddiel the wrong type of Jew, for coming to the defence of the wrong type of Jews? I must say, I find this right-wing Jewish censorship of left-wing Jews deeply alarming. Are you saying that members of Jewdas are not allowed to post from articles about Jewdas? Or are only right-wing interpretations of Jewdas only allowed on Wikipedia? I await your responses....11 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• If that is what you think we were saying, WP:CIR. Please re-read. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

That is general and not specific at all. The last reinstatement involved citations from the Independent, the Sun, and the Metro, all valid UK publications. Why were they deleted again? Is it because they were not anti-Jewdas? Until you come up with a valid reason why those three corrections, including the reference to what Baddiel said, are being deleted by you, I will reinstate them. This is right-wing suppression of left-wing freedom of speech. Mikesiva (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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 Jewdas. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find this dictatorial attitude unacceptable. Why was the citation from David Baddiel barred, when it came from the Metro newspaper, and was in defence of Jewdas? This is what I posted which led to me being blocked: "Comedian David Baddiel rejected suggestions that Jewdas was ‘despised’ by other members of the Jewish community. He tweeted: ‘They are just Jews who disagree with other Jews. Which means: Jews.’" It came from the Metro newspaper, and was repeated in many others. Can you tell me what you have against this entry? This sounds like right-wing suppression of left-wing freedom of speech to me. It seems followers of Jewdas are not allowed to post on Wikipedia articles on Jewdas, but critics are....Mikesiva (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read my comments on the Jewdas talk page. By not following standard practice on Wikipedia, you risk a block of increased length when the current one expires. As you know, this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit but, like crossing the road, certain rules need to be observed. Philip Cross (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read your comments, and they're very general and fail to address the issues. Come down to specifics...what exactly is wrong with the Baddiel reference? When I last checked, the Metro newspaper was a valid source for news. Has that changed? I now see you've removed my correction of bad sentence construction concerning the accusation of "steaming sewage". Do you revert to bad sentence construction on Wikipedia? I've attributed a better constructed citation of "steaming sewage" to Simon Kelner in the Independent? Is the Independent now a bad source? Then, having accused Jewdas of calling Israel "steaming sewage", you remove my entry from the Sun newspaper showing how most of the British media have taken it out of context. Is the Sun an unacceptable source now? Please explain what rules I've broken with all three posts, because neither you nor your moderators seem to be following any logical rules. Your condescending comment about crossing the road doesn't wash, because it seems the moderators driving the cars don't seem to be following any clearly defined rules. I worked as a newspaper journalist for many years, so I do know what proper editing is...and your moderators are not doing it. I await your answers to these specific entries....Mikesiva (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I am leaving it to another editor to fix the grammatical errors for reasons which other readers may understand. Read my user page and do a Google search for further information. Of course, all editors are concerned with communicating properly.

About your sources. Metro is in a grey area, sometimes admissible, sometimes not. The Independent is a reliable source, but nowadays might occasionally not be. As I mentioned before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. My crossing the road analogy (which is a near universal experience) was not intended to be condescending, but as a means of being kind to you instead of being direct which alternatively you might find insulting. In the same way people have to follow rules to avoid being run over, editors have to behave in a way which does not lead to warnings from administrators. This becomes progressively more severe over time. The links above should lead to a more direct explanation. Following that, start again with the Identifying reliable sources page which I suggested on the Jewdas talk page. Philip Cross (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That is an extremely vague answer and it shows that you don't have clearly defined rules about the unsuitability of any sources except the Daily Mail and the RT. Which is ironic, since the British media were repeating what the Mail were saying about Jewdas in the first place. I've seen citations from the Metro and the Sun elsewhere on Wikipedia, without action taken against them. What you say about the Independent is curious, since citation fourteen is also from the Independent, and you didn't have a problem with that. It sounds like you're trying to shift the goal posts after your moderators were heavy handed in their deletions. I'm sure it will come as a shock to the staff of the Independent to find out that like the Mail, they're no longer acceptable on Wikipedia, because they consider themselves to be a mainstream newspaper. I've read your link, but it's very vague. Could you kindly provide a list of British newspapers who are either acceptable or unacceptable to avoid the moderators being confused about my posts in future?Mikesiva (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Please use the links, or wait under another editor feels the need to communicate with you. I will be blunt, you would appear to be on your way to a permanent ban from editing Wikipedia. I have other things to do in the real world. Philip Cross (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you cannot refute my logic, so you resort to threats...that tells me all I need to know about Wikipedia. To be frank, I don't care whether you want to permanently ban me or not. I'm doing you lot a favour. I've seen so much rubbish on Wikipedia, and unfortunately a lot of people reference it. So, I joined, and came to correct a lot of that rubbish, especially in my area of academic specialisation, which is Caribbean history. I would prefer if folks reference accurate information. I also have other pursuits, so I won't shed any tears over any vindictive measures you may choose to carry out. I can now see why many of my academic colleagues look down their noses at Wikipedia.Mikesiva (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Now I know why these irrational edits were made to my entries, why I was barred, and why you cannot debate the issues I raise in a logical manner.^[1] That explains it. Mikesiva (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that one is just for starters. Follow some of the other links on my user page. An extensive, if ephemeral, reading list is now out there. But I am getting away from immediate concerns. Philip Cross (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Immediate concerns should include explaining why one citation for the Independent was allowed to stay, but mine was not. Immediate concerns should also explain why my Sun and Metro references were not allowed to remain, and if the Metro is your vague "grey area", then please tell me which newspapers are acceptable to you lot. I'm still waiting to see if Craig Murray is right or not. Mikesiva (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)mikesivaMikesiva (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Jamaica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clarendon Parish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Colony of Jamaica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Akan and George Walpole

Jamaican Maroons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Charles Knowles

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that some of your articles were mainly sourced to primary sources you appear to have written. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it seems that such sources can be used but with caution. What concerns me is that these are still primary sources for Wikipedia. Another concern is promotion, since you wrote them. I'm not sure if the concerns are valid yet and will let other editors weight in, but I'll post a standard conflict of interest notice below for now. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Mikesiva. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —PaleoNeonate – 00:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback.

With regards to Samuel Grant, it is true to say that very little has been written about him until I wrote my PhD. I'm just sharing the information I discovered for others to enjoy. If it will make you feel more comfortable, I will also share some primary source information on him as well. After all, there are members of the Charles Town Maroons who are very interested in people like Sam Grant, and sometimes the best way I can get the information to them is through avenues such as wikipedia. Mikesiva (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Mikesiva (talk) 09:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Walpole (British Army officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maroons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Major Jarrett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Edward Trelawny and George Walpole

Jamaican Maroons in Sierra Leone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Walpole

Maroon Town, Jamaica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Trelawny

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cudjoe's Town (Trelawny Town) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Walpole

Jamaican Maroons in Sierra Leone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to George Walpole

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerk (cooking), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maroons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Quao, Mikesiva!

Wikipedia editor Devopam just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add a Rights free picture and infobox to the article , will enhance reader interest

To reply, leave a comment on Devopam's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Devopam (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mikesiva, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to William Wilberforce have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa, I can't remember specifically what entries you are talking about. Can you elaborate which entries you had a problem with, so we can take a look at the sources in question? Mikesiva.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Venables, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maroons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mikesiva. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:William Carmichael Cockburn.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I was unable to find enough information to make this a viable page on its own.Mikesiva (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mikesiva. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Me No Sen You No Come".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a cite-template version of a certain reference you are fond of:

{{cite thesis|first=Michael |last=Siva |title=After the Treaties: A Social, Economic and Demographic History of Maroon Society in Jamaica, 1739-1842 |type=PhD |publicationplace=Southampton |publisher=Southampton University |date=2018 |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/423482/1/LIBRARY_COPY_After_The_Treaties_Final.pdf}}

You can put |pages=1-2 in there also if you have specific page numbers. You can also put notes and quotes and so forth. M.boli (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that!Mikesiva (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Cattawood Springs (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Trelawny

Coromantee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Edward Trelawny

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Sutton (Jamaica), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edward Trelawny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

There needs to be more than a single reference. You should be able to find his career discussed in histories of the period.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Simon Taylor (sugar planter) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Simon Taylor (sugar planter), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mikesiva! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mikasiva: hi, I moved your draft article on Simon Taylor to the main space. I started a Wikidata item about him Simon Taylor (Q18577015) a few weeks ago. Thank you for starting the article, I'll continue to make improvements (add references etc) over the next few days. Thanks again and congrats on your PhD!! MassiveEartha (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Mikesiva Hi again. Thank you for all the edits you've been making about 18th century Jamaica, especially for making the histories of the Maroons much more visible. 18 new articles is quite an accomplishment. I've been meaning to drop you a line for a while about a couple of things.

1. I wanted to let you know about Wikimedians of the Caribbean User Group. We're a fairly new, pan-region, multilingual User Group and with a focus to support Caribbean Wikimedians both in the region and the diasporas, and improve content about the Caribbean. Membership is open to all, you just need to sign up on Meta.
2. And, I wanted to let you know about the Jamaican language / Patwa Wikipedia which is written in the Cassidy orthography. It's one of three Wikipedias in Caribbean creole languages - the other's being Kreyòl Ayisyen and Papiamentu. Unfortunately there aren't many native Patwa speakers in the editing community. I'd be interested to hear what you think about it.

I've probably explained this all very clumsily. If you're willing to have a chat about any of the thing I mentioned you can reach me on Twitter at @LondonLabrish or via email.

Hope to hear from you soon and thanks again. MassiveEartha (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, MassiveEartha, for both Simon Taylor, and this...I will definitely make an effort to join. Following you now on Twitter.Mikesiva (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Glen Campbell (actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Thistlewood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Beckford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

French Guiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

French Revolution (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

History of French Guiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

Law of 20 May 1802 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

Napoleon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reunion

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

History of nursing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon Taylor

Nursing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon Taylor

Timeline of nursing history (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Simon Taylor

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if you had looked at the major rewrite of Nanny of the Maroons 16 December past? Here is the diff (which includes one more edit combining references).

The rewritten version seems to me like a better article overall. But I noticed that quite a bit of referenced material (along with the references) had been removed. Some of the removed material seemes discursive or tangential, but I didn't have a way to evaluate the changes. It occurs to me the article might benefit from an expert looking at what was changed. -- M.boli (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I am an expert. My area of specialisation is the history of the Maroons of Jamaica, and that's what my PhD is about. I can look at both versions, if you'd like, and reinstate any changes that are properly referenced. As you've no doubt noticed, a lot of the writing was based either on misinterpretations of the scholarship, or stating legend as fact. While Maroon oral history has its role, it does need to be treated with the same caution that we treat evidence from potentially-biased white sources. I will take a look at Nanny today.Mikesiva (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. The article seems more comprehensive and authoritative, and very accessible. I visited Jamaica for the first time last summer, but with only a few days for touring I confined my activities to Kingston and environs. Even so, it was truly a rewarding visit. -- M.boli (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure! I've enjoyed writing it. Next time you're in Jamaica, you should visit a Maroon town, just to get a feel of the history.Mikesiva (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nanny of the Maroons, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Congo and Akan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I hope you apply the same standards to WinstonGroovy, who's edited out large swathes of my well-referenced entries, without the common decency to discuss each and every entry. I look on with interest to see how Wikipedia handles this issue. Because how you will handle it will determine whether or not I want to continue being involved in this site. By the way, Seacole is spelt with an "a".Mikesiva (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Is that a fact? WinstonGroovy deleted numerous references to Mary Seacole being a nurse without discussing it at all on the talk page. It was only when I called for him to respond that he finally made an appearance. My references are from academic sources. I have recently been asked by an editor to totally revamp the Nanny of the Maroons page, which I was happy to do, to the satisfaction of bother of us. I did so because I have a PhD in History from Southampton, with specialisation in Caribbean history. What's at issue here is whether Seacole is a nurse, which my references show she is, or whether she's not, which is what Winston seems to be inconceivably arguing! How Wikipedia handles this issue will determine whether I continue to make a contribution to this site.Mikesiva (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi - please be aware that I have blocked the editor who reported you for edit warring, as by my reckoning they went over 3RR and you did not. I was also alarmed by their removal of your work at multiple articles, which was totally inappropriate - if any similar situation develops again, feel free to let me know, or to report it at ANI. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 18:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Girth, that makes me feel much better. I was unaware that he had been removing my work at multiple articles. I was only aware of his actions on the Mary Seacole article. Are you able to indicate where this has taken place? Or should I just go through as many previous edits as I can remember to see what's happened to these articles?

With regards to Mary Seacole, the leading Caribbeanist academic historians in the UK all agree on one thing - that she WAS a nurse! My edits were addressing that issue, discussing her contribution as a nurse. Are you okay with me continuing to do that? Regards, Mikesiva (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Mikesiva, if you look at WinstonGroovy's contribution history (here) you will be able to see what they were doing. I think that I've undone it all, on the grounds that their reasons for removing them were erroneous, but feel free to check.

I don't have any problem with you continuing your work on Seacole; I haven't read through your own contribs closely, so this is in no way an accusation of improperly using your own work to support this content, but since you say that the leading Carribeanists agree on this, it would probably be a good thing to make sure that you are referencing the work of multiple academics who support that view. As always, if you receive pushback, go to the talk page in the first instance. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 19:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Girth, I will follow your advice and provide multiple citations attesting to Seacole being a nurse. I probably won't do it now, since I'm a bit busy. But I will do so over the month of September. So far, I checked the article on Moore Town, Jamaica, and I must say, you've done an excellent job of reinstating the citations. I feel fairly confident you've dealt with most if not all of them. I will check it out during the course of the evening. Regards, Mikesiva (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Colony of Jamaica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Revivalist.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Diannaa I thought I had copied the requisite references when copying sections between the Colony of Jamaica, Norman Manley, Alexander Bustamante, Jamaica Labour Party, People's National Party and Richard Hart (Jamaican politician). Can you point out any specific flaw in what I copied?Mikesiva (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What you need to do differrently is state in your edit summary at the destination article that you are copying from one article to another. Such attribution is required by our license. Here is an example of how to do it.— Diannaa (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand now. Please bear with me, as I try to come to grips with the correct procedure.Mikesiva (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.S Philbrick(Talk) 13:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

S Philbrick(Talk), I've provided references to the three articles I've quoted from. I've also rewritten quite a lot of the stuff I used from those three articles. I really don't understand why you would delete every single thing I've written about Lecky, leaving a totally inadequate stub on this outstanding scientist. Can you please explain this rationale? Surely, it's better to deal with every edit one by one, instead of embarking a wholesale destruction of the article. The Jamaica Observer article you're referring to was in fact taken primarily from the Jamaica Gleaner article I cited, without references, I might add, unlike my entries. Though he does attribute the information he used to Rebecca Tortello, who I've quoted and cited.Mikesiva (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit _(blether) and MassiveEartha if you don't mind, I'd like to draw your attention to another article, Henry Dundas, 1st Viscount Melville, where I'm trying to provide some historical balance, with detailed references concerning his role in the British slave trade. However, I'm having difficulty dealing with another editor named User:Quadrilla1 who has been going around deleting my well-referenced sources without engaging in discussion on the Talk page. I've reinstated the edits, but I suspect this may get out of hand some time soon.Mikesiva (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somerset v Stewart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Ramsay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Bunting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingston.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Dundas edits

Hello--just wanted to let you know that we have a project at Edinburgh Uni editing pages on Scottish History and Black History, and some of us have been editing the Henry Dundas page. We saw you'd made lots of great edits on the page before us. We have done a little bit more, hopefully you will see in the same spirit as yours. Let us know if you see any problems. Thank you! Ruth Alper (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That's good to hear, Ruth Alper (talk)! There's a particular editor named Quadrilla1 who arbitrarily deletes posts that present Melville in a bad light. If you find the pushbacks are unacceptable, you can always ask MassiveEartha to intervene. You can say I referred her to you. She's a senior editor who wants the true story of slavery to be told on Wikipedia. Also, you may want to look at Melville Monument, Edinburgh. It needs some work to be done on it.Mikesiva (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ruth Alper and Mikesiva: Greetings, thanks for the "praise" Mike - I'm not sure it's deserved! Ruth do keep us informed with how things are progressing and good luck with the your editing. MassiveEartha (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

My pleasure, as always, MassiveEartha! Thanks for all your support here on Wikipedia. By the way, I've used the Vincent Brown map of Tacky's War to significantly expand the Wikipedia article on the subject. Please take a look at it, and tell me what you think.Mikesiva (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MassiveEartha and Mikesiva (talk). Not quite sure I've got the hang of using talk pages yet so hope you get this. I will take a look at the Tacky page, that sounds like a great set of additions. Ruth Alper (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi MassiveEartha, I have inserted an edit in the article on the Haitian Revolution, which highlights the British invasion of Haiti, and their attempts to reinstate slavery. Naturally, as Secretary of War, Dundas was pivotal in that decision. This entry is well-referenced with citations from renowned historians on Haiti, namely CLR James and David Geggus. However, once against User:Quadrilla1 has arbitrarily deleted that entry, because it apparently presents Dundas in a bad light. We may have to keep an eye on this suspicious activity.Mikesiva (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed a paragraph you inserted in article Henry Baring. Neither of the two refs you gave seem to support the assertions. Was there other evidence about slaveholding?

That another editor then directly contradicted your text, without further refs, makes me think all this is either ambiguous or uncertain. Please review. Shenme (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mikesiva: Hi, could you take a look at these two articles, Are they for the same place? Do they need to be differentiated or should they be merged? Thanks! MassiveEartha (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cudjoe's Town (Trelawny Town)
• Maroon Town, Jamaica

MassiveEartha (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I was wondering about that. However, while Cudjoe's Town (Trelawny Town) is a town that housed the Trelawny Maroons, ironically Maroon Town became a town for everyday Jamaicans after the Trelawny Maroons were deported. In other words, no Maroons have lived in Maroon Town in 200 years. So, maybe they could remain differentiated, in my opinion. Do you agree?Mikesiva (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mikesiva: If they're geographically the same location I think the articles should be merged and cover the history of the settlement. There's already a lot of confusion on Wikidata with the many Maroon Towns, see below, so either was there's some clean up to do. Might also be a good opportunity to a list of "treaty towns" on Jamaican Maroons:

• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6772363 Maroon Town, Sierra Leone
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6772362 Maroon Town, Jamaica
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56275107 Cudjoe's Town (Trelawny Town)
• https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27119415 Maroon Town, Saint James (Cebuano Wikipedia)

None of this is super urgent, just what caught my eye this morning when doing updates about the Accompong election. MassiveEartha (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

MassiveEartha (talk), I have created a new section in Jamaican Maroons that lists all the Maroon treaty towns, with a little explanation beside each. What do you think of it? Does it go some way towards addressing the confusion?Mikesiva (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Committee for the Relief of the Black Poor into Sierra Leone. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jamaica College, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

If you give me a chance, Arjayay (talk), I am just about to put in the citation!Mikesiva (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

No, you need to add citations at the same time as your additions - other editors have no idea what your future intentions are - Arjayay (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

It's hardly controversial. It's a list of past achievements and previous old boys at JC. I would suggest you give the editor a little time before you go around wielding the "undo" axe.Mikesiva (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your edit to Draft:Free black people in Jamaica has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

MassiveEartha (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC), I finally finished this draft! I've submitted it for review, in case you're interested.Mikesiva (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Morant Bay rebellion into Free black people in Jamaica. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you copied or moved text from Quilombo to Maroons. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A recent large edit to Nanny of the Maroons caught my attention. The edit summary is:

Hello we are the Rowe Maroon family of Jamaica, we are the blood of Queen Nanny. there are many inaccuracies on this page about her including her name and origin. what i change can be vaerified by the very books that are already used in citation on this page

The edits are, unfortunately, beyond my ken. But as you are an expert in the field, who has worked on this page in the past, I thought you might be interested.

(I put your talk page on my watchlist for the next week, so I will see if you reply here.)

-- M.boli (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm sceptical about people who claim to be related to Nanny, because that doesn't necessarily make one an expert on the subject. Let's take it step by step. Mikesiva (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)