User talk:Roger 8 Roger

Hi. I apologise in advance for poor knowledge relating to wp edit and text conventions. I would like to offer the ONS as a reliable source to resolve this long standing dispute, not previously presented, this document can be found here ^[1]. I have copied relevant text page 13 as follows " Name of the historic county in which the place is situated. The historic counties of Great Britain (also known as ancient counties, counties proper, geographical counties or traditional counties) have existed largely unchanged since the Middle Ages. Their original administrative function became the responsibility of separate administrative counties and county councils set up by the Local Government Act 1888 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. It was these administrative counties and county councils that were abolished in England and Wales in 1974 by the Local Government Act 1972, and in Scotland in 1975 by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, not the historic counties. " If this is discounted as insufficient, I would request assistance how to invoke admin intervention - it has been fifteen years after all.Mikewhit (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I cannot open or find the link. Please copy the URL and paste it here between brackets, eg [xxxxxxxxx]. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Opens ONS Open access portal, click on box around UK shown on page. Opens ONS Index User Guide. Relevant text page13.Mikewhit (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger, Is this of use, or not? Please note that I can provide pictures of a number of road signs in my area showing use of Historic County boundaries. Can I post them in wp?Mikewhit (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mikewhit Yes, the ONS is very good. I think the way to handle this is simply to change the entry in the guidelines that "We (ie wp editors) do not accept the minority view that historic counties still exist with their earlier boundaries". That is all that should be done. That is what is causing all the problems. We should not get involved in how we should handle the counties problem after that because that is another topic for another discussion. If we combine the two issues we will end up with an unworkable confusing discussion, as happened before. To do that we must provide reliable sources that state or show they do exist with unchanged boundaries. There are RSs that state they or their boundaries were changed in 1974, and some editors will use those as evidence. It will then become a matter of weighing up which side's sources carry more weight. A complication is that many sources state something that can be interpreted in different ways, mainly because the word 'county' is not clearly defined. Also, please be aware, if you are not already, that reliable secondary sources are not equal. The best ones are from published academic books written by neutral experts on the subject. The ONS is also very good. The road side signs are also good but less so. We need to ask, who put them up and for what reason? If they say "You are entering the historic county of Yorkshire", that can be interpreted in different ways. Anyway, before another attempt to change the guidelines occurs we need some more RSs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Roger8Roger, I have been doing more reading😒at wp.

Denial of Geo boundary not found at any source, may be original research. Interpreting sources = synth? Start with this?

The erroneous statement is all inclusive EVERY county, EVERY boundary. We only need to demonstrate 1 to discredit. In that case, the following sentence in the guideline is adequate.Mikewhit (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to why editors will not allow the compromise passage to stand - surely in cases of dispute the compromise is a policy requirement?

This will allow wp:englishcounties to disambiguate the three 'county' names issue, allow individual county pagies to present their specific situation, and allow wp:places' to show the where, when and which of each.

This is much larger than at first sight. Consider Metropolitan cities and the variety of 'historical counties' involved in 'wp:place' accuracy (lack of).Mikewhit (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I have long understood that removal of the one passage is all of the issue.Mikewhit (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

RS = reliable source, yes? If so, which RS say geo/historical boundaries were changed? If a low number, any chance to persuade them otherwise given our weight of evidence?Mikewhit (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

In any case, first point is to have that paragraph removed.Mikewhit (talk) 15:12,

The ONS document pages 13, 14 and 15 deal with Historic, Lieutanancy and Metropolitan counties. Clear that wp disambig should be used.

Of particular interest to user dave.dunsford would be specific reference p15 to Berkshire boundary, not abolished. 'County' page could choose to say it is no longer used, that would be their issue.

Please specifically advise here or my page if you, or I, should raise specific challenge at the page containing the guideline - I am happy to risk admin censure if that is what it's going to take. We can agree wording prepost if you likeMikewhit (talk) 08:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Adding

References

. Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 11:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the revision you just made on Middlesex. Good work! ... Gareth Griffith‑Jones ^{The Welsh Buzzard} 11:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please don't feed the troll :-) :-( Ross Finlayson (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger 8 Roger, I just want to clarify the reason you removed my edit of the page. Am I to understand that it is because you believe that the names of the musicians who played on the show are not notable enough for Wikipedia? Please note that these names and instruments are listed in every Playbill at every performance on Broadway, and are sourced from the same database where information about the names of actors can be found.

Perhaps you can clarify for me the level of notability required for a Wikipedia page? I did try to find information but to me it seems that Wikipedia is all about accumulating well-sourced information and publicly sharing that information.

Joshplotner (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Culture of New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your revert, I suggest that Template:Infobox legislature is the one to use. Schwede66 01:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've now added the correct template. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I quite like your recasting of the "British Statesman" section of the American novelist's article - BUT "Winnie the Brit" was only three years younger than "Winnie the Yank". WTY was what we call an "early bloomer" - he began serious writing at an earlier age and was almost immediately popular - while WTB was a prime example of a late bloomer. Anyway - we can't really call either "young" (or "old" for that matter) in relation to each other - they were very close contemporaries. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Earthquake Commission (EQC) and the Canterbury earthquake sequence.

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) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In this revert's edit summary, did you accuse me of being a sockpuppet? If so, why? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not at all a sock. I thought your edit stating Walter Sutherland was a man is unnecessary because it was self-evident, as covered by DUCK. I saw that you are a long standing experienced editor so I did not bother elaborating. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) WP:DUCK has to do primarily with sockpuppetry, hence the confusion. WP:OBVIOUS is probably a better choice in the context of editing articles. Even WP:BLUE would convey the same meaning, though it is specifically about citing the obvious. - BilCat (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mr Guye Apologies for creating confusion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Unremarkable; not notable; "... Under normal circumstances of global relative civil and judicial stability I would have taken this as a glorious joke. Nowadays I am not so sure anymore and feel tempted to see this as yet another postfactual attack on basic agreements of ethics. But let's see how it turns out. I do hope for you that law in general is still of residual value for you. -- Kku (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree that the section "1941 Replay" is trivial to the main article of the Raid itself. However, it is examplary to the long vivid history of two nations with intensive - friend and foe - common naval history. Is it possible to retain it in a 'Trivia section' instead of removing it altogether? (as Wikipedia indicates Wikipedia:Handling_trivia ) Eric JF Kleijssen 18:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric JF Kleijssen (talk • contribs)

I think that would be fine to create a Trivia section. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You have nearly 70 discussions on your talk page at present, Roger 8 Roger.

Don't you think it would be a good idea to archive some of them (in particular, the ones that are no longer active)? Creating a talk page archive is pretty straightforward. Plus, it reduces the scrolling required to get to more recent, active discussions. :) 213.233.155.170 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Some people choose not to archive their talk pages, even though it's pretty straightforward to do and helpful to other users. And some people choose not to use registered screen names when editing Wikipedia, even though it's pretty straightforward and helpful to other users. :) - BilCat (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Your comment about the location of the Linwood mosque: did you append it to the wrong section instead of the "Linwood mosque photo" section? Akld guy (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thanks -- I realised straight after posting and have now put it where it should be. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Akld guy (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to respectfully reiterate the point I made on the SPI page; that is that the account which unduly reverted your edits at 1982 Invasion of the Falkland Islands was not created or utilized by me. Simon Levchenko (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Rather than simply removing the word as you did in this edit, you could have tagged it with "citation needed". If changes had been happening fast at that article, your edit could have been overlooked and could have been regarded as a sneaky, underhand edit. In future, if you call for a ref in an edit summary, please use the tag rather than deleting. Akld guy (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised at this comment. My edit-comments were more than clear for all to see. I removed the word illegal because it is unlikely there is any legislation stopping him from changing the cartridge which is what the sentence said. This is all part of the problem with the then legislation. The sentence makes perfect sense without the word and since when has removing an non-referenced claim been against WP policy? I might be wrong, and the then legislation might specifically have forbidden the changing of the cartridge which is why I asked for someone to supply a citation. But, I very much doubt there is a reference otherwise I might well have put in a ref tag as you suggest. To paraphrase what I said at my edit, IMO words like 'illegally' are used too loosely on WP. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean you still doubt that there's a ref for the claim? Do you realise that about an hour after your edit I reverted it with a ref? To clarify because you are not listening: it is better to tag unsourced claims which are probably true (like this one) with "citation needed". That gives any editor the opportunity to source the claim. What you did by removing the word was sneaky, because not all editors have the time or inclination to follow edits and their edit summaries, and of those who do, many are not willing to go to the trouble of finding a source. The difference is that the "citation needed" tag stands out in the text and doesn't go away until someone does something about it, whereas your deletion and edit summary is briefly noticeable on watchlists and is liable to get overlooked when edits are moving fast. Akld guy (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Taukihepa/Big South Cape Island, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muttonbird (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) 09:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

How can you possibly claim that my version with for does not scan better than yours? The previous version is stilted in comparison! Yours is an unwarranted change. Broichmore (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't change anything -- you did! 'Named after' (somebody) or 'named for' are both used but named after is heavily more used in UK English. Seeing as this is a UK article we should use 'named after', or more exactly we should keep it seeing as that is what was already there. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the same word repeated in a sentence. Any awkwardness has to be judged on a case by case basis. I can see absolutely no clumsiness is the sentence as it was. If it did read clumsily then the first edit should be to rearrange the words or use punctuation better, not to change a perfectly normal verb. Thank you for your reply here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

More "heavily" used, meaning more "frequently" use. Don't presume to teach me my own language. Broichmore (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Outside of London, especially in Britain, people commonly use the word erroneously to refer to the whole city, despite the true meaning. IWI (chat) 14:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Sources? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Britannica; Collins. Obviously I’m quite aware of the correct meaning, but people outside of the South East commonly use the word to refer to a Londoner overall, as I can say as a resident of the Midlands. IWI (chat) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I wanted to give some more context as to why I've just removed your recent edit at Events leading to the Falklands War. Your edit inserted a ton of unnecessary spaces, which isn't a problem unless it messes up the formatting, which it did - several citations were broken.

There were a number of other issues, which, as I look back at your work now, are more problematic than I originally thought. There are a ton of errors and uncalled-for word changes. You also changed direct quotations. I am not sure what you were aiming for with this edit, but it was not an improvement. Jessicapierce (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I simply added to the single use citation, to give the book its full name. I certainly did not add all those strange changes that you have reverted. I cannot see how I could have done that accidentally either - they required a conscious effort to do. I was attempting to achieve nothing more than amending the book's title. About your other comments, I am not sure what you mean by problematic, a ton errors, and uncalled for word changes? I recall one case of unintentionally editing a direct quote within a wider sentence - it happens - and it was quickly reversed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your reply. I initially thought your edit was done in good faith (and am glad that does seem to be the case!) but as I looked back through all the changes, I couldn't see any way that it wasn't vandalism, or at least intentional nonsense. That's what I meant by "problematic." I have no idea what could have caused this, but weird stuff happens. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I will check further into this to try to find out what has happened. I certainly did not make that edit! All I can think of is that it is some sort of glitch within the software, or if I am overly suspicious, that someone with the necessary skills has somehow vandalised my edit. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible that you were looking at older versions of the article, and accidentally edited one? That would effectively revert the article possibly to a version from years ago, but not identical as you made changes to a book title.-gadfium 09:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahh..Problem solved! I was indeed looking back at past edits to see how that article originally came to be. Many thanks. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Boris Johnson, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rainclaw7 (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Empirical fact? Or contributing to the ignorance of the rabid pack of editors fighting to see how many edits per minute they can get it. Find yourself a few reliable sources and weigh them against other reliable sources that state otherwise. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Sunday tabloid. Your insertion of non-referenced blatantly incorrect OR is what is bordering on being disruptive. You should know better. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not in dispute that he was elected as PM-designate, and there are sources further along in the article that support that. There are no reliable sources that state that he was not elected as PM-designate. Additionally, repeatedly removing the top of a standard infobox template borders on disruptive and had no relation to whether there are enough sources. Rainclaw7 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention possibly disguising an edit with a misleading edit summary (removing his position as PM-designate is not fixing "British English") Rainclaw7 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the article Māori language wit the comment "?". I made the change because "self-report knowledge to some extent" can be read as the survey respondents "self-report[ing] to some extent" their knowledge of Maori, which I find confusing. Compare this to my "knowledge of some extent" (of Maori), which I find to be more specific. May I rephrase the passage to "149,000 self-report some knowledge of the language"? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed 'of' to 'to' simply because that is the preposition used in the phrase 'to some/a certain extent'. I can see your possible alternative meaning of the original text although I think it unlikely to be read that way by most people. In any case, your change proposal seems fine to me. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edit to this page. Your previous edit summary didn't say anything except "ce", which I'm assuming you meant "copy edit." Unfortunately that did not tell me anything about why you were removing the figures, which is why I reverted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'll be more specific in future. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Languages of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I gave my reasons in the edit summary for editing the page, which you reverted. I usually don't mind people reverting my edits provided it is consistent with WP policies and that there is a cogent explanation. I would appreciate if you can provide a reason for reverting my edit, instead of just reverting it. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

A de facto official language does not need to be enshrined in law. Any dispute is around whether a de facto state language is possible, or whether to be official a language must be documented as such, hence only a de jure official language is possible. There are views either way. Your chjange created the sentence 'Spanish is the de facto language of Argentina'. This does not make sense, and you referenced against another wiki article. I accept that the use of de facto and de jure languages varies from article to article within Wikipedia and that there is no standard consensus use, which complicates matters. In this article, Spanish was taken as de facto official whereas your change made it unofficial, which takes the position that only de jure official is possible. I think you need to get consensus before making that change. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an explanation. For the record, I did provide a reason. If you looked at the citation, it states "Though not declared official de jure, the Spanish language is the only one used in the wording of laws, decrees, resolutions, official documents and public acts". This is very similar to the status of English in the United Kingdom and the United States. That is the principal reason why I made that edit. And if you read my edit summary carefully, I said, "Plus, according to...," which means that it is a secondary reason, to maintain consistency across WP articles. De facto means "in reality ()." Thus, it is perfectly reasonable and neutral to state that "Spanish is the de facto language of Argentina," just as it is perfectly reasonable to say that "Dari was de facto language of government ()," "French (or English) is the de facto language of commerce (, )," or "English’s assured status as the de facto language of the United States ()." Thus, your assertion that my sentence "makes no sense" simply makes no sense. Anyway, despite my disagreement, I don't think this is worth quibbling over. So I'll just move on. Thanks again for providing your reasons. Cheers, danielkueh (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I read over your proposal from last year re: Wikipedia's treatment of counties. It made perfect sense to me. I find Wikipedia's treatment of UK counties to be totally baffling. Britannica and the ONS Index of Place Names can happily treat administrative counties, ceremonial counties and traditional/historic counties as distinct entities. The UK Government is happy to acknowledge that the traditional/historic counties still exist and are separate entities from administrative and ceremonial counties. I simply can't fathom why Wikipedia is out of line on this and in contravention of blindingly obvious, verifiable facts and good sense. The result is that our treatment of UK geography is flawed, confusing, contradictory and, frankly, bonkers!

It's just as plain as the nose on your face that we should have a set of articles for the traditional/historic counties. We should then have a set of articles for each administrative area be it one of the numerous types of local government area (with their numerous nomenclatures) or ceremonial areas. I think one could argue that the ceremonial areas require only very minor articles since I'm not sure that the area of jurisdiction of a lord-lieutenant is something of that much public importance, certainly compared to that of local government and the traditional/historic counties. Perversely, in Wikipedia we seem to give the ceremonial counties the most importance, rather than the least!

In many ways arguments about whether the traditional/historic counties "still exist" are a bit pointless. These arguments seem to me to be more about whether individual users feel the counties to be important to themselves. I'm not sure this is relevant to Wikipedia. The ONS accepts the concept of the "historic county" and accepts that they have definable names and bounds. ONS also accepts that they are totally distinct and separate from any administrative area which uses the label "county". The UK Government repeatedly accepts their importance to our culture. These are verifiable things which can be cited, not unsupportable assertions. These in themselves ought to be far more than sufficient for Wikipedia to accept them too.

My only slight disagreement with the points you made is that I would prefer the term "historic county" be used to refer to these areas. No adjective is perfect but it seems wise to me to use that used by the ONS and also that used by the UK Government in its recent Celebrating the historic Counties of England guidance. The ONS definition is essentially that of the Historic Counties Standard, produced by the Historic Counties Trust. Britannica uses this phrase too. It seems to me that this is the phrase around which a consensus is building. We need to bring Wikipedia in line with that consensus after it's years of going it's own befuddled way.

Did anything become of your proposal? We seem to have a lot of users who come across almost like flat-earthers in their denial of plain facts and who manage to squash things. But we can't let stupidity win out for ever on this issue.

Cheers Peterjamesb (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Peterjamesb, and thank you for your welcome message. After I began that attempt to change the way historic counties are treated I found myself increasingly isolated and on the defensive, so much so I eventually backed off and let things lie - but without admitting defeat! I wish there had been a few more editors like you around at the time to add weight to the cause, but alas that was not to be. There is a hard core element of experienced, well established editors around who were involved in the establishment of the current guidelines many years ago. They are the ones who call the shots and need to be convinced of the need for change. The nub of the problem seems to be the policy here that we do not take the view that the historic/ancient/traditional counties still exist with the former boundaries. To get that changed we need to get several high quality reliable sources that say otherwise. This is because many of those sources do not say that. I am referring to academic level publications about local govt that set the standard on what has happened since the first reforms in 1888. Other evidence, such as what a govt minister says, or even what civil servants put on to govt websites, is not to the same level of reliability, and in some cases is only original research (ie, what the minister says). It is very frustrating because the current existence of historic counties is palpably obvious and the laughable contradictions that arise from assuming they no longer exist are numerous. Under current guidelines, historic county Lancashire still exists but with changed boundaries; but historic county Yorkshire no longer exists, is but one example of many. Anyway, any ideas you have on getting a consensus change would be welcome. Finally, I really am not too bothered about calling them historic counties. As time has gone on I can see that the term has become so ingrained that to change it would be counter productive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. OK. As regards England and Wales, it is certainly very clear from the census returns of 1891 and 1991 that the GRO did not see the LGA 1888 as affecting the counties at all. Rather it saw the administrative county and county borough as being additional entities which it now had to produce statistics for too! I thought this was covered in the Historic Counties Standard but I could probably dig it out from the main reports in the library where I work (Cardiff Uni). I remember reading up on this donkeys years ago. I've a feeling there may be more academic books from around that period which cover this too. I'm sure I read one somewhere long ago. I can ask someone who might know. Whether the hardline editors would accept that the fact the LGA 1888 did not affect the counties is also evidence that the 1974 etc. Act did not affect them is another matter, I guess. I'll try to pick some stuff out and get back to you. It's a bit of an odd sort of thing to be asked to prove really. That something did not happen!! I'll see what I can come up with and get back to you. Peterjamesb (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This was the introduction to the 1891 census report which makes it very clear that, at the time a few years after their creation, the administrative counties were considered to be new entities, separate to what it called the "ancient" or "geographical" county. There is no suggestionn whatsoever here that the creation of these new admin entities changed the pre-existing counties or abolished them. In fact, if anything, the GRO seemed rather as though they wish it had! Note the phrase "both remain". The phrase "of the same name" is telling too. I don't think one could possibly argue that LGA 1888 affected the names or areas of the "ancient" counties. This is certainly the basis on which I have always understood that the counties have not been affected by LG legislation and it's always seemed like a no-brainer to me.

"There remain the counties. The use of the term county in two different senses has long caused much confusion and inconvenience. There has been the ancient or geographical county, that is to say the county of our maps, being the area which in ordinary speech is meant when the term "county" is used; and the registration or union county, which is an aggregation of poor law unions, corresponding to a certain extent, but by no means completely, with the ancient county, known by the same name. In order, so far as possible, to prevent the confusion arising among those persons, who are not familiar with the complicated divisions of the country, from the double use of the term, the facts relating to the ancient counties and their sub-divisions were given by themselves in the first volume of the Census Reports of 1871 and 1881, while the facts relating to the registration or union counties and their sub-divisions were given separately in the second volume. This, however, was but a partial safeguard, and, when the Local Government Boundaries Commission of 1888 was appointed, it was hoped that some way would be found of causing one or other of these two counties to disappear, so that the various subordinate local administrative areas might all be sub-divisions of a single larger unit. But it has turned out otherwise. The ancient county and the registration county both remain, and a third county, called the administrative county has been added to them, differing from each. In some cases3 the new administrative county is identical with the ancient county of the same name, but usually the two differ more or less, the differences being as follows:—(1.) All boroughs that were believed to have had on June 1st, 1888, populations of not less than 50,000 persons or that were already counties, and some few others, specially selected and scheduled in the Act are independent administrative areas, with the name of county boroughs. (2.) Any urban sanitary district that is situated in two or more ancient counties forms part of that administrative county alone which has the name of the ancient county in which the greater part of the population of the district, according to the Census of 1881, is included. (3.) In several cases, as Sussex, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire the ancient county, in addition to the above alterations, is divided into two or more separate administrative counties. (4.) London, consisting of parts of the ancient counties of Middlesex, Surrey and Kent, forms, in itself, a separate administrative county."

I wonder whether there is some value of including a quote from this or some information about it within the historic counties of England/Wales articles? At this stage just in relation to the creation of 1888 admin counties not affecting the ancient counties. As I said before, I think there are other sources from around then which take the same view. Tracking down one or two of them may be helpful. I'm thinking if we can at least establish that the 1888 Act did not affect the counties then that's a start. Seems to me completely verifiable and citable. If we aren't going to accept the GRO's view of geogrphical units, whose are we going to accpet? Peterjamesb (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

.............................

Hi again Roger8Roger. This is Mikewhit (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC). Roger8Roger and I had long discussions over a couple of years, some of which is being repeated since this discussion has been ongoing for well over ten years. Roger8Roger and I reached firm agreement that the principle sticking point can be overcome simply by removal of the statement in the guideline to English counties relating to the non-existence of the geographical boundaries (now known as Historical probably in an attempt to differentiate). This statement is clearly 'opinion' - not only does it directly say so in itself, in all of the massive volume of text on a vast array of :wpuser and content pages generated over years, not one citation or scrap of evidence has been presented in support - and in theory at least is open to removal by that very reason. There have been a very large number of page edits made which have been reverted due to this. So far, every attempt to change the guideline has been reverted / removed. It may be the case that we must wait for all supporters of the guide to fall by the wayside. As previously stated, I am willing to go to arbitration. (I was at this position a year ago, only the death of my wife diverted me, for a period now at an end).

I propose to attempt change to the guideline, again, to determine if the resistance remains. If this is challenged, particularly by the same users, at that point I WILL immediately invoke arbitration. I request support for this course of action, which I will obviously undertake on my talk page. Roger8Roger, I would appreciate your guidance especially for correct process/format? Mikewhit (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mikewhit. I will support any attempt to change the guidelines but I am unlikely to get too involved if it is a repeat of what has happened before. Best is first to raise the matter again on the WikiProject UKGeogrphy/counties talkpage. Then try RFC for help. However I strongly suggest you get as familiar as possible with operating wikipedia first because if what you do is not succint and direct you will not get very far. I also suggest you look at what has happened in the past with editor coments. This discussion from the start of wikipedia should be read and understood first. Many of the editors back then are still around. . Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Roger8Roger. Would you be prepared to 'proof read' my intended post(s) on my talk page? I intend to attempt a different angle, I have no idea if this has been done before. The 'mechanism' for wp seems to be that any information MUST be fact based and supported by citation. The subject guideline and specific phrase have no substantiation as far as I have read - do you know of any?Mikewhit (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again Roger8Roger, In addition to above, in your past dealings, has anyone asked for the editor / creator to add citation relating to subject passage? Mikewhit (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In addition to everything that has gone before, wp:englishcounties supports the view that subject guideline is incorrectMikewhit (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Everyone, a number of the higher level pages including wp:Ancient_Counties appear to have been revised recently, 2019, containing statements that directly conflict with the subject guideline in respect to the continued existence of historic counties.

This essentially means that there are a large number of wp pages requiring update in line with higher level pages, which are being prevented by enforced adherence to erroneous guideline.

'Ancient Counties' and 'English Counties' text is still somewhat confused but that is not for this discussion.

In the wp world, how can this obviously poor state of affairs be used to have the guideline revised or better still, rewritten entirely?Mikewhit (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Westminster parliament is the central legislature for the whole UK. England does not qualify for inclusion on this list as it does not enjoy autonomy from the central government. It does not have its own legislature or executive. Do not add England to the list until consensus is reached by a wide group of editors. Leave the status quo that existed yesterday. I will have to report you to an administrator if you continue to edit war. Cordyceps-Zombie (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Roger 8 Roger, This part ", without any scientific evidence," in the Irredentism article is added by Rs4815. See link. I would appreciate if you remove that part as well then. See WP:NPOV. MrUnoDosTres (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Done Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would post at talk:British Isles#Sample infobox without the admin information what further trivia you think should be removed, because I don't really believe that there will be consensus for outright removal - and lack of substantial consensus will mean no change at all. --Red King (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Roger 8 Roger, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. MRSC (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello MRSC, I appreciate your concern but my editing pattern indicates no such thing, presumably because the claim, or accusation, is entirely without merit. While I have your attention, I notice that you have reverted an unreferenced statement from the lead at Beckenham. If I have time I will put it back with an appropriate citation, unless someone does so before me. However, the statement is so palpably correct that a citation seems unnecessary. Do we need a citation to confirm that the sky is blue? Your edit summary also appears to be incorrect. Guidelines do not trump reliable sources, as you doubtless know, but even if they did, guidelines on this matter, , unambiguously require the use of the statement you reverted. I realise this is a confusing topic for many editors, placing an even greater onus on us to get our facts correct and to edit with care. If you feel that Wikipedia's current guidelines on handling UK counties needs an overhaul, then I would be happy to support you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making edits to counties on London area articles. This matter is long settled, see WP:UCC. Your bold edits will be reversed. MRSC (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you stop! You are the person who has started deleting information from various articles, in clear breach of wiki guidelines that require that information to be there (the historic county). All I have done is to revert those changes. It is now up to you to justify those changes on a talk page and not to start edit wars, which is what you are doing. I suggest you use the Bexleyheath talk page because it will likely have a greater audience than Upton. Here is certainly not the place for a discussion. Incidentally, the tone of your comments here is mildly threatening. Kind Regards, Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

You recently reverted my reversion of an edit to the Surbiton page by an apparently largely single-purpose account. Might I ask why that is? The various pages of the outer zones of London boroughs are frequently changed to remove their link to London and instead link them to Greater London with no other apparent reason than a POV. They form part of London, and de-linking them from London is detrimental to Wikipedia's users, who will instead now be redirected to a vastly inferior page than the main London article - and one which deals specifically with the minutiae of Greater London (the entity) as opposed to the city that is London. The particular user that made this edit today went ahead and -without discussion- amended basically all of those articles. --Michail (blah) 23:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Michail/Sarah?, thank you for your explanation. The WP default regional entity for UK places is the ceremonial county. Surbiton is in the ceremonial county of Greater London. Calling it London is therefore a POV and POVs cause the sort of confusion you refer to. If you feel the GL article is so inferior then why not attempt to improve it by making it more relevant. I am sorry for not explaining my reversal - I accidentally pushed the rollback button instead of the undo button. I agree the editor in question should not have made all those changes without first mentioning it on a talk page.

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Geographic_location_in_neighbourhood_articles for a discussion on this. MRSC (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Christchurch mosque shootings does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

No edit summary because there was a talk page post to a discussion that has been ongoing about the background section for a few days. Now, unless your discussion contributions are constructive and civil, without arrogance or condescension then don't bother posting anything here because you won't be welcome. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Rhodesian English, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Roger, I recently updated a page following the renaming of the Welsh legislature. But it has been reverted back to the old name. Can you please advise what I need to do to correct this? Thanks Dunadan9 (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean on the UK article - I see you have made the same changes elsewhere. It was reverted because someone (me) queried the change. When that happens the onus is on the person who made the initial edit to justify that edit and not to re-revert just because he did not agree, ie edit war. This is usually done on the article's talk page. I started a talk page discussion for you. When a consensus is reached among editors there, then the change on the article page can take place. I suggest you now go here and join the discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear sir,

Please be advised that it is a matter of great importance to myself, and hopefully you, that we can resolve our differences over the phrasing of Argentina's contentious claims to British territories in a way which might be cordial, pleasant and cooperative. I don't know what you meant by "edit" war (one can only assume) but I'm certainly not here to instigate a war of any kind (unlike a certain nation did in 1982, if you'll pardon the joke). It's unfortunate that you felt obliged to challenge my edit, I accept your comment about the phrasing and would like to resolve the issue pleasantly. Do please get in touch, be it here or via email, and we can look to create a sentence together which satisfies both sides.

Kind regards,

UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what the problem is. If you now think your edits were better, as others might think they are, then take it to the talk page on either or both of the articles involved. See BRD. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Rhodesian English".

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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, Roger, archive some of the old, no-longer-active discussions on your talk page, will you, please?

You have been editing Wikipedia for five years, so surely you must be familiar with WP:ARCHIVE. "Bulky talk pages may be hard to navigate, contain obsolete discussion, or become a burden for users with slow Internet connections or computers. The talk page guidelines suggest archiving when the talk page exceeds 75 KB (or 75,000 bytes), or has multiple resolved or stale discussions."

And before you say "It also says that archiving one's own user talk page is optional", I do not always agree with that. I certainly don't agree with it in cases like yours, where the talk page is more than twice the recommended size.

So, please, archive your old discussions and reduce the size of your talk page to below 75,000 bytes. And then it will be a lot easier for everybody - you included.

Thank you. 80.233.36.172 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Sorry for surelly bothering you, but i have noticed that you reverted the edit i made on Navassa Island, where i added the (abeit unofficial) flag. As i am new editor and i am not yet very fammiliar with the policies, i would like to humbly request you your reasoning of that revert, so i can learn. Best regards, Arcatom (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

No bother at all and glad you replied. all wiki articles fit into standard layouts that you need to comply with for consistency. To help with this different sections have templates that need to be filled in. Look here for more detail. Look on the edit section to find out what template is used for any particle article. The Navassa Island infobox template is here. Your map edit did not comply with the template parameters so it looked out of place when you finished it - usually when the template is not properly followed you will get a clear red error sign. Incidentally, there are rules about the use of flags in articles. Someone else might query your flag even when it is inserted properly. I have not checked on your flag myself myself. Hopefully this helps. I am not the best person to ask about some of the more technical elements of wikipedia though. Finding out how things operate is a never ending experience. Have fun. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I think i got it now. Thanks, and also thanks for your warm welcome message on my talk page! Arcatom (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

did you look the video until minute 28 ? did you ever heard about NSA operation rubikon ?--Gonzosft (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This issue was raised a few weeks ago when a similar addition was made to the Falklands War article. It was discussed on that talk page , and decided not to use it. Your citation is not of the necessary high quality either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Not wanting to edit war, but I moved the discussion to the talk page prior to your undo, which means you have undone a well-formed edit twice, despite invitations to discuss on the talk page. . Also, you state in your undo that my edit was not cited - clearly it is quite well and painstakingly cited, so that is incorrect.Chumpih (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the further clarification on the latter of these points in Talk:Aberystwyth Chumpih (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

You reverted my revert. The comment was in respect of the CEO's conduct online, this is appropriate comment for 2 reasons: 1) It was Widley covered by National Press and TV News in the UK. (Guardian article as citation) 2) The Individual in question is cited as a Key individual.

It is well known and covered that these activities took place and the links support that. Given this incident is widely reported to the under investigation by both the Police and the Charity Commission. It's highly relevant and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23CC:C00:D00:5488:3986:D6EE:3B81 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I watched the BBC/ITV news thoughout Falklands conflict

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/recent/falklands/falklands_gallery.shtml

hence the suggestion. It was called a conflict the whole time with no declaration of war. This is quite a useful discussion on the point:

https://www.quora.com/Was-it-the-Falkland-war-or-the-Falkland-conflict

It's only been called a war for the last decade or so. Etherp (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest your comments are taken to the article's talk page. Can you please repeat or copy and paste there. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I find it incredibly baffling that you feel entitled to single-handedly call the settlement partially successful with not a single source to back your claim. Your entire corpus of edits regarding Patagonia is so obviously biased and your only goal, at least on this topic, is to keep pushing this bizarre rhetoric of Patagonia being nobody's land in as late as the mid 19th century. You're treading on very thin ice here and one could make a reasonable claim that your account is a WP:SPA and you're doing advocacy at least on this subject. If you want to avoid raising any more flags you should at least try to learn some history and you'll realise that the uti possidetis juris principle applied to Patagonia lands and that the border disputes with Chile were mostly resolved by the 1881 treaty. --MewMeowth (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

What was your reason for reverting my recent edit of "Dependent territory"? Atelerixia (talk) 07:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your edits have been questioned and reverted several times by other editors. In addition, the three I reverted had no explanation attached. Once questioned by others your next step is to discuss until a consensus is reached on what to do, not to enter an edit war. I think you do have a point, but please argue that point on the talk page first. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Hey Roger. I just wanted to let you know that you are still (just about) on my Christmas card list. Could you please provide me with your address so I can send you your light up Rudolph (with a facemark of course) Christmas card. Justgravy (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Your reversion of an anon last night was probably not the edit you intended to revert. The anon was fixing an error in terminology, but I suspect you wanted to revert Aubinas from the previous evening. Having spent some time a year ago trying to find a decent solution to which is the second-largest city, I feel burned out by the issue, and don't plan on getting involved again myself.-gadfium 21:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reverting Aubinas is what I intended. I should have checked better before assuming it was the IP. Thanks for pointing that out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I appear to have linked to the wrong portion of the act -- it is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2012/1/section/1

I will be replacing my edit with the correct link.

I will leave in the original citation; I apologize as I had believed it to be outdated, but it is from the UK general assembly, not the Welsh one.

Both links state that Welsh is an official language in Wales, *and* that English is as well -- your edit states that Welsh is the *only* de jure official language in any part of the UK, and this is not true, as English is also official in at least Wales and possibly also in Scotland and Northern Ireland though I am less convinced by the citations I found for those on the page List of territorial entities where English is an official language.

Again, I admit fault in removing the link that was there -- but that is no excuse for throwing out my entire edit. PsyMar (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Replied on the relevant article talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (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. Justgravy (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:WTRMT. PPP (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

And? There are several reasons there that justify the removal of your template. I will not waste time talking about this - it's pretty simple but you clearly don't get it. I will wait till you get blocked which is the way you are currently heading. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, PPP was blocked for edit warring, which was extended for attempted block evasion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2021 (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. Pee-Tor (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The result of the reported breach was that the filer, Pee-Tor, was the person blocked. S/he was a sock, possibly of PPP. The accusations were, IMO, spurious anyway. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello R8R, thank you for your edit summary and your work with this article. While no map is perfect this one is as good as could be found, and it is verifiable (UK Census 2011). It is also being used for this same article in multiple other wikis (like here plus the Global file usage). You have also failed to provide any policies that prevent me from adding this map, nor did you point to the "rejected" discussion that opposed posting this map.

But my main point is: should we give the WP:READER nothing to use, because the map is not perfect? No, I don't think so. Also, I did not compare this map methodologically with the Irish and Scottish ones, I meant it in the same infobox's "display or visual" style as them. Again, I am giving you the opportunity to clearly policy-base or consensus-base your revert of my valid edit (otherwise please self-revert). Btw, I am not going to edit-war with you or start a week-long RfC over this. I'm too busy for that. So please meditate on what I just wrote. It's up to you to leave this article a richer one (with the decent map I added) or a poorer one (no map at all) for our readers. Cordially, History DMZ ^{(HQ) † (wire)} 04:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I'd prefer replying on the article talk page to open this up to a wider audience, which I will do shortly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there Roger, I've recently made this move request regarding Enfield, Middlesex. Would be interesting to see what you and other London-involved users think! Regards, PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Why did you change my update that NZ is "southwest of Australia" back to west citing 'no improvement'? New Zealand IS southwest of Australia, not just west. Over 25% of NZ's land area is south of the southernmost point in Australia, while NONE of NZ is further north than Sydney, which itself is in the bottom 1/3 of the country. Without reference to a map west would indicate NZ sits somewhere around the latitude of Brisbane, which is factually incorrect. Therefore, stating NZ's location as southwest of australia is a significant improvement. Please revert back to my edit, thank you.

West is sufficient in context. You are trying to be too specific in an area of the article where that is not required. Also, you interpretation of what is southwest is a point of view because it cannot be defined as specifically as you suggest. Your edit was reverted and I do not see any need to put it back. The next step is to take it to talk to get consensus. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

alright, so, if the flag type i put on the page (battle of the atlantic), is wrong, what type is right? because, if you tell me, i can correct it. Dojyaaan, Joojadorprofisional is here! (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See HERE, which says it all. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a place to type in pointless additions that add nothing of value. Why not try removing flags from other infoboxes when they add nothing constructive - there are plenty of them. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, i answered in the page. --Luciano Coda (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Check what I wrote there please, and answer. 188.151.55.33 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I copied the discussion from Talk:List_of_irredentist_claims_or_disputes#Claimed_by_who?_/_Suggestions_for_criteria_for_inclusion to that page as well, as per your suggestion. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

They recent additions by Abel Pody should be accompanied by coverage of the prosecution evidence. As it currently reads there is no balance and reads more as article for those with a vested interest

The above was posted, unsigned, at the top of this page in mid-July 2021. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanks re: my contributions to the RfC on historic counties. I hope it was constructive. It's an issue which seems to cause friction though I can never see why. Now the RfC has been acted upon, I have started a discussion about a few issues around populating the new historic_county field at Talk:Historic_counties_of_the_United_Kingdom. This seems to me an appropriate place to hold this sort of informal discussion. I think you would find it interesting and I've no doubt you have an interesting perspective on things. Peterjamesb (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Peterjamesb. I have commented on the HC article talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm glad my thoughts are leading to a debate and there are interesting points being made by all contributors. Personally, I would agree with your view about the need to revisit WP's view of the historic counties. I was interested to see you make a point akin to what I feel. I take the view that the whole argument around "exists" or "not exists" is framed in the wrong way. It is framed in such a way as to seek to view the historic counties as equivalent to modern, statutorily defined administrative, which you can view as either "existing" or "not existing" (for their statutory purpose). I just don't see the historic counties in those terms at all and I don't think having the debate in those terms is helpful.

To me the central problem with WP's current approach is that it fails to understand that the creation of local government in 1889 was a whole new thing. A new set of areas was created for specified administrative purposes. There is unequivocal evidence that this was how this situation was viewed at the time and has been ever since, by GRO, ONS, the Government and others. My view is that WP should accept this verifiable fact and frame its treatment of UK administrative areas and of the historic counties in those terms. That means an end to treating present day LG areas as though they are a continuous evolution of the historic counties. Current administrative areas should be described in terms of the legislation that created them and the purposes for which they exist. Previous administrative areas can be described in terms of the history of public administration. In that approach, saying that administrative counties were first based on the historic counties in 1889 is completely correct. To claim that they, or their successors, literally are a changed version of the historic counties is palpable nonsense. Such an approach could also make the point that parliamentary areas continued to be defined in terms of the historic counties until 1917 after which the parliamentary areas were recast in terms of the administrative counties. This is all verifiable fact that is lost in the apparent determination by some editors to cling to a paradigm which just isn't correct. Which is all a long way of saying that WP's current approach not only does not treat the historic counties properly but also, in consequence, makes a confused mess of trying to deal with administrative areas too. The absurdity of this approach is seen in the 'Lancashire' article which tries to deal with the historic county and the modern council area called 'Lancashire' in the same article and as though the latter is in some way an evolution of the former.

Back to "existence": it is clear that the historic counties were not altered or abolished by the legislation that created LG areas or any subsequent legislation which changed those admin areas. ONS states this quite plainly. It is also clear that the historic counties are no longer used as the basis for administration. Some might say they "exist" because they were never abolished. Others might say they "don't exist" because they are no longer used for any admin purpose. I don't see this as the issue at all and I think way in which the argument is framed acts against the chance of WP ever having a sensible approach to UK geography. To me the phrase 'historic county' refers to one of those long standing territorial divisions which came to assume great cultural importance too. Modern admin areas were certainly based upon them but need to be viewed as separate from them. An understanding of the role of the historic counties in our history, heritage and culture is important, as is their role in providing the basic framework for the first version of LG. But the most important point is that the historic counties are still relevant cultural entities. People hold an affection and affinity for them because of their long, long histories, not because of a council that existed between 1889 and 1974. They are celebrated in county days. County flags are registered on the basis of them. Innumerable sporting, social and cultural activities and organisations are based upon them. They may not be used for public administration but they are still used and they are still relevant to much more than the study of history. They are also, despite the media being a bit clueless, still used as general purpose geographical framework, something the ONS positively encourages. To say they "don't exist" is to portray them in the same way one could a defunct administrative area. It's the wrong analogy and the wrong question. The question should be "are they of such relevance as to given prominent treatment in WP"? The answer is clearly 'YES'.

Which is all a very long way of saying that I broadly agree with your approach of removing the whole "continue to exist" line from the policy. I'd need to go away and read the policy and think about whether just omitting this would be helpful or whether some other wording would need to be put in there. It comes down to two things. 1. WP accepting that LG is not the historic counties continued. 2. WP accepting exactly what it means by the phrase 'historic county' and how they should be presented in articles about the historic counties themselves and articles about UK places. Several editors have sought to criticise the ONS and the Historic Counties Standard. I think these critics are missing the point of the Standard. To me it seeks to give a pragmatic way of defining exactly what the historic counties are, in name and area. This is clearly based on verifiable evidence of how GRO, ONS etc. views things. The Standard doesn't seek to disguise ambiguities or complexities. Surely it provides a framework against which detached parts, counties corporate can be described and understood? 19th century practice always considered a detached part to be associated with both counties. 19th century practice never considered counties corporate to literally no longer be in their original county. In using the Standard as its definition of 'historic county' Wikipedia would be basically saying that the historic county data was being presented on the basis and with the provisos of the Standard, as ONS does. But of course, WP would deal with detached parts and county corporate issues etc. At least adopting the Standard would give a framework against which these descriptions could be made. The present situation is riddled with inconsitencies and contradictions.

Apologies. I've rambled on. I'll conclude by saying that, despite all I've said here, I really wonder what chance there really is of getting WP to change its approach to the policy on historic counties? The RfC on the infobox seemed a minor, uncontroversial thing to me, but we seem to have editors making all kinds of arguments to try to undermine both the process of the RfC and the logic of its intent. Would not seeking to change WP's policy on historic counties create even more dispute? Even if the policy were to be changed, would we still not see opponents seek to undermine and dilute whatever change was agreed? I don't know the answer to these questions, I'm just wondering! In the next few years it looks highly likely that Government will replace the remaining two-tier LG areas in England. Much of the confusion between LG and the historic counties could be remvoed by that process. This would actually expose WP's current approach to England's geography as being built on shifting sands. I suspect that a change to WP's approach to UK geography may not happen until these LG changes force it to change. Peterjamesb (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if I have understood you correctly, I think you have touched on the way forward - having HCs treated as something quite different from the admin entities. That will require a further step forward in the thinking of many people including the HC supporters. This would then overcome the obvious block that half the editors think HC do not exist and half think they do and neither side will budge, not never. How that concept can be introduced is the tricky part. An isea I have held for a while that I think would help with this confused mess is to place more stress on the subsection 'Governance'. That subsection is not always used for UK places and when it is it is often handled poorly. It is treated as a one size fits all dump box into which everything vaguely to do with 'government' is chucked. HCs are usually mentioned there but should they be, and if they are should they be only in a minimal way? Ideally the governance section should be renamed 'local government' and deal with the post 1889 changes. This would side step the problem of having HCs treated as LG entities, when they were and are much more than that. It would also focus the thinking of readers onto what has actually happened to UK LG. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was getting at. How can we express the status and importance of the HCs in a way which gets away from this "former admin area" paradigm? Can we do this is a way which will meet the concerns of most of those editors who are not happy about the treatment of them as still existing areas? Can we reframe the policy in words which we can get a consensus on? Can we propose, as you are suggesting, a better way of dealing with the HCs in the main text of an article? And so on... BTW, I've long felt that mixing up the historic counties and the history of LG in the same section is a confusing way of going about things. Even worse, in the historic counties articles (e.g. for Wales) is a load of history of LG information! Actually, I had been thinking whilst glancing at some of the debate on the ukplace infobox page atm that one idea might be to have an 'Historic County' section for each place article. The full story of counties corporate, detached parts etc. can be laid out there and it can all be kept away from the LG stuff. If one starts the LG Section straight after that, then the story of LG can begin at 1889 and the creation of an admin county based on the historic county. I need to go away and re-read the agreed policy on UK place articles and have a think about how we could re-word this in a bid to bring an end to this ridiculous disgareement about something which just didn't ought to be complicated or controversial. I'll post again here with some more concrete ideas when Ive had a chance to do this. Peterjamesb (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dolly Pentreath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page L1. (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not replace referenced content with unreturned content such as you recently did at UK languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c8:8e86:f400:6cf2:2b3:6f7d:c099 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I know you want to change the guidance on historic counties, and I agree with that totally. In its present form WP:UKCOUNTIES is not a guideline for 99.99% of UK geography articles: It is about the articles on the counties themselves. For that matter it is obsolete on that very narrow task. The quote to "reaffirm the long established position that we do not take the view that the historic counties exist on exist with the former boundaries" is about a different issue to that which causes problems.

A major reason for the antagonism around historic counties is how editors try to insert them. Focusing on the lead (and now infobox) is a classic advocacy tactic, and makes editors who push for inclusion of historic county information seem equivalent to those who push pseudoscience.

IMO, WP gives primacy to ceremonial counties for good reason, as it best reflects actual current usage by sources. That should not be changed, unless the usage in sources change (as with Bombay/Mumbai). That drives certain points like article titling.

All historical information ought to be fully discussed in the relevant section, and needs to be done carefully. I think guidance for that is best given by giving a few examples of best practice. The lead also needs similar treatment, and again examples would be good. My view is its important to keep the ceremonial information first, and kept clearly distinct from historic county information. When these two facts get combined into a single sentence things get messy fast and that isn't helpful to readers. For example guideline could suggest: Don't say X is in the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Kent). Instead simply say X is in London in the first sentence. Say X is in the historic county a bit later, alongside info about its history.--217.32.153.153 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you 217.32.153.153 for your thought provocking comments. Your remarks about UKcounties not being the best place for the "reaffirm" sentence has given me cause to reflect. I have always said that ceremonial counties need to take precedence and I have found edits by some pro-HC editors to be counter-productive because what they want is simply not realistic and not backed by sources. I too think the way people write about counties is a large part of the problem. For example, The word 'transfer' can imply something that strictly speaking did not happen and which gives a false impression of what did actually happen. "Bromley was transferred from Kent to London" is commonly stated. Bromley was not transferred to anything and the word 'London' can be used in different contexts that mean different things to different people. I did once try to change "Belvedere, London to Belvedere, Greater London, in an attempt to generate debate and to point out the problem of using 'London' to refer to everything with Greater London. but that idea was given short shrift! I have always been a little puzzled by people who find it confusing to say "X is in the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Kent" because to me it is perfectly clear, but I do accept that I am in a minority. I am not sure of your view on "ABC is in London and historically in Essex", a commonly used phrase which attempts to be neutral. This to me is horribly condusing and ambiguous and should be avoided. How counties are described is certainly a major cause of the problem. I do not have an answer but I am open to debate. One reason the recent infobox change is beneficial is that it generated debate and has forced certain editors to get off the couch and argue their point. Whether of not the UKCounties definion is a false path to follow, I hope there is an overhaul of how counties are dealt with, somewhere and somehow. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd look to completely separate the ceremonial from the historic. If a single sentence tries to address both ceremonial and historic, its asking for trouble. The problem with "X is in ceremonial county Y and historic county Z" is a reader who doesn't understand "ceremonial county" and "historic county" are specalised terms, and sees ceremonial and historical as adjectives. If the adjectives are dropped, the sentence becomes "X is in county Y and county Z" which is clearly confusing. If it says X is in Y and historically in Z", the plain reading again implies that X has a former relationship to Z. In both cases, someone with an understanding of the types of counties can disentangle this. Splitting the two points into seperate sentences avoids this problem.

The other reason to avoid putting "X is in ceremonial Y and historic Z" is how the ceremonial county is used. "X a town is in Yshire, south-east England" is a typical 1st sentence consistent with articles on places in all countries; it gives the administrative hierarchy from lowest level necessary to country level. Inserting the historic county breaks the simple A in B in C admin chain.

As an example I'd have Stratford, London say something like "Stratford is a district of London, and the site of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.... Within the historic county of Essex, it was formerly a farming town which became an industrial suburb of London as the city expanded".

(Side note: Regardless of the county situation, it seems inappropriate to call Stratford a town - when it is fully part of the modern metropolis).--217.32.153.153 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger At your request, I have edited the statements relating to Association of British Counties and approved the revert of the edits I made to the WP:UKGEOGRAPHY guidelines to align them with WP:UKCOUNTIES. I hope we can move forward in a constructive manner. If you wish to understand my position on this issue, I have added a section to my user page Jonnyspeed20 (talk) 04:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JimmyGuano (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Addington, London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doomsday.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Please can you clarify whether you intended to remove my additions to the "Classification" section, unrelated to the date? Please clarify this on the talk page. Tewdar (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

And also, why you erased everything. Tewdar (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

See that talk page - the large erasial was a mistake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Can I, pretty please, put the content from 'Classification' back? Tewdar (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The lawyer says I need your approval, is all... Tewdar (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As you are clearly the best person to ask about classification of Brittonic languages, obvs... Tewdar (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You probably need to say it, in triplicate, stamped with a solicitor's brand, on the article talk page, though, for it to be legally binding. Tewdar (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Is there a particular time of day or night which is best for you to engage in lucid discussion? Please advise, and I will set my alarm clock. Tewdar (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

To anyone reading this, Tewdar was reverted and took offence. His subsequent reaction here and on the Cornish language page illustrate his character. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Look, I am sorry for the way I reacted. Really, I'll try and be more civil. Now, can I please put the content back in "Classification" - you clearly don't have any objection to that content, do you? Tewdar (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, put it back, which is what I always expected you to do, but perhaps not in such a time consuming way. I had no control over that auto-patrol that has made matters worse. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

You have to say it on the article talk page or that lawyer will revert it again... Tewdar (talk) 11:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent considered response to my comment on the talk page there - collapsed now so giving appreciation here Lyndaship (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I added my suggested conditions for making the lists to the page (and removed some items that were just added without any supporting text at all). I will leave it like that for a little while to check the reaction before potentially making bigger changes. Gunnar Larsson (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You may wish to withdraw your welcome notice at this person's talk page as it is a known troll that targets political articles. You were not to know. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Done Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This article should not have been tagged as WP:A7. Sourcing has little to do with speedy tagging. I don't want to see this kind of tagging again. Also, archive your Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.. Your editing of the page New Zealand English is disruptive, none of the information you've reverted was cited and your edit summary indicated that you agreed with the other edit reason leading to the conclusion that you are editing for the sake of argument rather than a disagreement. If you have a disagreement feel free to cite the sources or start your own talk page section. Until then, I request that you stop being disruptive with your edits. Gladfire (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Kia ora Roger, Beckenham Te Kura o Pūroto is the school's name, so it should be noted as such. Also, the school was formerly Beckenham School (never "Beckenham Primary School). Thanks for the other edits though. Cheers! Gobeirne (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was noted as the name at the start. I could have structured the change better though. My hasty edit also lead to calling it, incorrrectly, Beckenham 'Primary' School. Also in haste, I did not check the source properly and thought it was written after the name change, which it was not. That would explain why the head teacher refers to it as Beckenham School. Thanks for sorting that out. There are other school articles that might need amending too..ping user:Gadfium Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't already, you might want to go through that user's edit history. The same info got added to any place where the service stops, it seems. Schwede66 22:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure how to approach it because it isn't vandalism and some of his-her edits appear to be partly useful. I will have a look at a few of them and see how far I get. I will also say something on his-her talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Roger 8 Roger,

Regarding this RFC, I boldly bolded your !vote in order to make it clearer to the closer, under the assumption that you would not object though I pinged you in the edit to give you the chance to revert if you did. However, another editor has objected on your behalf; assuming that you see this before the discussion is closed and do not object, would you mind bolding your !vote in order to make things easier for the closer and ensure they don't overlook it? BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I have bolded them myself now. Hopefully we can now move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your talk page is now over 200 KB in size. Over two hundred kilobytes.

Do you ever, ever bother to read WP:TPG, eh? Especially the Archiving sub-section, which quite clearly states:

"Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has numerous resolved or stale discussions."

You have blatantly and shamelessly allowed your talk page to grow to over two and a half times the stated maximum size. And you clearly cannot be bothered to archive any of the 140-odd discussions - one hundred and forty odd - that you have on it, even ones from over six years ago now.

Not only is this incredible carelessness - but it also reeks of an attitude of "I can do whatever the hell I like with my talk page, and I don't give a toss what others think." And let me tell you, that is a very bad attitude to have. A terrible, shocking, disgraceful attitude. You absolutely should give a toss, especially if there are clear rules such as how big a talk page can become before archiving of old discussions is required.

Carelessness and the wrong attitude will not get you far anywhere on Wikipedia - your talk page included. And you won't always get away with it, either.

I therefore strongly suggest you get your talk page down to 75 KB, by archiving many of the discussions on it (especially those from the 2010s). I strongly suggest you do it soon, too. And I strongly suggest that once you've done it, you continue to archive old discussions as necessary - and never again allow your talk page to greatly exceed 75 KB. None of this is particularly difficult, either.

Cheers.

80.233.33.58 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Four days later and you have not done as I have suggested.

And I tell you what - I'm as surprised by this as I am by the sky being blue, grass being green, the Pope being Catholic, and one plus one equalling two. I hardly need to say, this means I'm not the least bit surprised at all.

I guess this does confirm that your attitude is "I can do what I like with my talk page, and I don't care what others think". You don't care that WP:TPG clearly states a maximum size for talk pages, and that old discussions should be archived when that maximum size is reached.

Considering that you have edited Wikipedia on a regular basis for seven years, that is extremely disappointing (and I'm not exaggerating). You really ought to know far, far better than that after that length of time.

@Drmies, Redrose64, and MRSC: are you and other admins following this? You ought to, because it really is disappointing for a user as experienced as Roger 8 Roger to be behaving like this. Cheers.

80.233.33.58 (talk) 13:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I am not, and I am not going to go along with your threats. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to give up until either Roger 8 Roger sees the proverbial wood for the proverbial trees, or gets punished - or indeed both. 80.233.33.58 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

IP, who are you? Normally, it doesn't matter, but an IP with four edits, three of them on this talk page, requesting an editor get punished for a long talk page suggests a relevant history. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTTHERE. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 00:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

80.233.33.58, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#THREAT, it is unacceptable to threaten people with "admins [you] know" or with having them banned for disagreeing with you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 80.233.33.58 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The rantings of a signed out ban evading editor with a grudge, obviously. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, can no-one see that Roger 8 Roger is breaking the rules by shamelessly allowing his talk page to grow to over twice the stated maximum size? 80.233.33.58 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Get a life. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

My talk page had been weighing in at around 800K and had 500 sections. It's amateur hour over here. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 07:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to the day when your talk page is longer than EEng's talk page. /j Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a bit late, but I am unsure as to why you reverted my edits on Downe. I apologise if my edit summary was slightly unclear or it seemed like it was POV, but I was just trying to align this article with the other articles about places in Outer London, e.g. Bromley which states in the lead that it is a "town in south-east London." I'm aware that Bromley is in the Greater London Built-up Area, unlike Downe which is outside it, but nevertheless Watford is inside it despite being in Hertfordshire, and that has not been defined as being in London. In summary, I don't think it makes sense that some areas that have been part of Greater London (and outside London's old boundary) are described as being in London, whereas others are described as being outside it, like the aforementioned Downe and Bromley example. Also, the use of "bus" and "buses" next to each other seemed a bit awkward-sounding to me. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Anonymous MK2006. This is part of a very extended, widespread and ongoing discussion, sometimes heated, about historic counties. The outer London area has its own unique complications but ultimately it is the same. There are two views: define a place as being in its local govt area or in the area people usually use. Wikipedia policy is to follow common usage as determined by reliable secondary sources. However, WP also allows consensus decisions to allow for a uniform approach to similar articles. But consensus cannot override policy. I do not live ion Downe but my guess is that it is much more often known as Downe, Kent than Downe, London: (policy says use Kent but for uniformity it is better put in London. My view, that all outer London places are put in London to the almost total exclusion of the historic county, is too harsh and not a reasonable description. Anyway, do what you want to with Downe. I am sure that it will be tampered with by someone else sooner or later as part of this ongoing debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, why did you revert my revision, which itself was a restoration of information pursuant an act of clear vandalism 2 years prior?

cf.

curprev 20:04, 4 July 2022‎ Roger 8 Roger talk contribs‎ 46,140 bytes +1‎ Undid revision 1096478573 by 62.159.242.114 (talk) unsourced undo Tag: Undo

curprev 18:22, 4 July 2022‎ 62.159.242.114 talk‎ 46,139 bytes −1‎ →‎War of the Pacific: On 15 Feb 2020, the editor 112.141.190.207 had particular fun with the date of signing the Treaty of Defensive Alliance between Bolivia and Peru. Reverting to the correct date. undo Tag: Reverted

62.159.242.114 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

62.159.242.114, That entire subsection is not referenced. If you want your date put there you should use a citation to back the change, not what you think the date should be, even though you are probably correct with the date. What happened back in February 2022 isn't really relevant. Why not treat this as a good oportunity to practise some basic editing skills? See cite and RSS and OR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The previous Talk page discussion about Russian potential use of nuclear arms was previously discussed on Talk page there with consensus to keep the edits here . ErnestKrause (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. As mentioned previously, macrons - especially on the word Māori - are common usage and agreed practice, and their continued removal is disruptive editing. Turnagra (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit above by Turnagra is probably about my edit here on 3 October 2022. It was in response to her extensive list shortly beforehand. It is part of an ongoing dispute over my belief that the user is in breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines relating to the excessive promotion of Maori language words on English language articles relating to New Zealand. My concerns are never properly addressed. My edits, when they are made, are not vandalism, not constantly repeated, not 'not getting the point', not refusing to accept consensus that itself is not in breach of WP policy, and not unconstructive. In my opinion, the issue this editor has is not liking being held to account. Although he may think that my views are peculiar just to me, there are other editors who have expressed similar concerns but in their own way. A not unimportant observation is that this editor, who is clear not uneducated, edits heavily weighted to promoting Maori, to the exclusion of other no less important issues in NZ articles. There is nothing necessarily wrong in that and no slur is intended, but in light of his mud-slinging at me, it is an observation I think is worth making. Similar reversals on the same day were made here, which is not a NZ related article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Roger, it had nothing to do with your comment on the notice board - it has mainly to do with your persistent belief that macrons somehow aren't used in English and your frequent edits to remove them. I've tried to address them before, but to be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure how - from what I can tell, your main argument seems to be that macrons and use of te reo Māori are a government conspiracy, and the only source you've cited to date is Uncensored magazine. But if you have genuine, non-conspiratorial concerns which you can clearly articulate for me to address, I'm more than happy to give it a shot.

I'd also like you to elaborate what you're meaning by your comment who is clear not uneducated (sic) in the context of a perceived bias towards Māori in my editing. Setting aside that this seems bizarre (I'd wager that the vast majority of my edits are in relation to natural features rather than te ao Māori, with the distant second place probably going to NZ music), there seems to be some sort of insinuation there around editors who focus on te ao Māori - I'm just not sure what it is.

As for your comment around how your edits are "not consistently repeated", this might be true on individual articles, but you've got a fairly strong track record of frequently trying to remove macrons and some questionable views around Māori issues generally (such as placing the Treaty of Waitangi in the "See Also" section of Apartheid). I do think you're on the whole trying to be constructive, though I can't help but feel your view of what's constructive in relation to te ao Māori might not be shared by the wider population. Turnagra (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Turnagra: You should be aware of WP:Don't template the regulars. It's only an essay, but many editors think that using templates on a long-standing user is rude. I don't always agree with Roger 8 Roger, but there's no question but that they are a good-faith editor and I hope the tone given by the template is not quite what you intended to say.-gadfium 03:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Gadfium, I wasn't aware of that page. To clarify, what is the process if an established author continues to make edits which go against consensus and is out of alignment with the rest of wikipedia? I feel like I've had or seen others have the exact same discussion with Roger several times over, yet the same edits continue to be made - hence resorting to a template rather than having the same discussion for the umpteenth time. Turnagra (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll reply at your talk page.-gadfium 04:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulster Scots people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American colonies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It isn’t an English dialect, It’s a Scots dialect StaneDonnie (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@StaneDonnie, Argue your point on the article talk page, not here. You will need to make a stronger case than just saying it isn't. See wp:OR. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Roger 8 Roger. Do you think an SPI may be appropriate for Garfie489 (contribs here) for the reasons mentioned on the Romford talk page? I suspect the account may be linked to the Riteinit/Mgkfact sock. Their attempt to communicate with Justgravy, the focus on Romford in their correspondence, and style of their attacks on certain editors (including you) seem strikingly similar to those of the Riteinit sockpuppet. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be worthwhile. Do you want to do? I' have to sign off now. The style of writing is strikingly similar. For someone with so few edits his/her confidence using WP is also a common thread, as is the surprising focus almost exclusively on this HC debate, which in the wider scene is a pretty minor point. If I have not misread your comment, I agree that the organised analysis of my and your posts amounts to prowling and borders on harassment - another common trait with the earlier edits? Incidentally, I am begining to think another Rfc would be useful. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Fully agree. I would be willing to request an SPI. And, yes, another RFC may be useful. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Or to translate for everyone else

"Sir, our years worth of ignoring Wikipedia guidelines and edit warring to promote a political ideology are under threat - what do we do?"

"Confirmed, "Operation Gaslight" is go. The best way to deal with any genuine editors trying to put facts before belief is to simply fabricate whatever we believe might stick."

"So abuse Wikipedias systems until we can get the voices of genuine editors silenced that refuse to quit against our political ideology?"

"Well yes, is that not what we've been doing for the past half decade? - hes called for scrutiny into our constant edit wars and deadlocking of hundreds of articles against wikipedia guidelines. If people actually investigated our actions, we would quickly be deplatformed - he has to go before anyone looks into us"

"Youre right, if we were deplatformed - years worth of bad editing and ignorance of guidelines would surely be undone..... we can not allow this. Ill fabricate the most detailed lie i can comprehend and hope the system falls for it"

Garfie489 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Roger 8 Roger. As you requested I put my change in Lebensraum up for discussion in the talk page. I would apreciate your response why you reverted the change, and see if we can improve the article. It does seem to me that a short mentioning of the current meaning would improve the article and not deter from its main content. I am not a regular editor, so apologies for any "deviation" from normal code of conduct here. Zottelje (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have replied on the Lebensraum talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This is just a quick note to say I am not deliberately ignoring the talk section you created - I am really busy with stuff until Thursday and have minimal time for Wikipedia until then. I will reply when I can. Take care. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Sirfurboy🏄 - appreciated. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Your watchfulness is appreciated :-)

Hi User:Roger_8_Roger, I've checked and in my previous revision of the article (=> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&oldid=1133499164), sizable portion of the text was shown as altered, although only two characters (") were actually added. don't know why Wikipedia shows the differences that way... BtW, I've just Googled it and the phrase "the term "..." is always used with the noun of the term enclosed in quotation marks. In my latest revision I've chosen to italisise the term's noun instead ("the term British Isles..."), for consistency with punctuation in the next clause of that sentence. :-) Cheers, Serge Z. (szagory@yahoo.com) Szagory (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the message and for the changes. I was a bit fast reversing your post and should have self-reverted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you revert my change? I've been to the territory once, and i noticed that there are some Spanish speakers. And i've researched why there are, and that was because it was once occupied by Argentina. 2601:280:4F81:4490:79C3:68FB:AD93:5D54 (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Explain more. What were these Spanish speakers doing there and why were you there? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Can't give you an explanation on the 1st one, but these Spanish-speakers mainly come from Chile and Argentina.

2. I wanted to see what the territory was like. It was quite unpopulated place. But there are some Spanish speakers living in the place. Most of the people speak English by the way. 2601:280:4F81:4490:79C3:68FB:AD93:5D54 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Nobody lives there permantly. If there are temporary specialist persons there from Chile they might speak Spanish to each other but that doesn't count. Your addition to the infobox was wrong: Spanish is not a recognised language in the territory. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Roger, I genuinely do not mean you any wrong. But I've explained the changes I made and provided valuable sources from Te Ara and the Waitangi Tribunal's Wai 262 report. Yet you've failed to respond to my message and reverted my edits at least twice now without an edit summary. On the talk page, you never mentioned why you deleted my changes to the sentences about the Moriori either. I don't want to fight you, and I feel as though it would be beneficial for neither of us. Please read my latest message on the page and hear me out, as I've heard you out. Aubernas (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

See wp:BRD. You made a major change and I reverted it. Your next step is to talk to try to reach a consensus on what, if any, of your changes to keep. Just because you did start talking doesn't mean you can put back your disputed additions. When reverting several changes together I don't always have the option to give a reason - it just happens, but even if I did, the reason my comment would be to see the talk page discussion. Instead of keep repeating that your additions are good and your sources are good too, you should discuss the reasons I have clearly given why they are not good. If you don't understand then I cannot help further. I notice you have been involved in other disputes on different articles and been warned before. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Roger, you also reverted my edits, which were based on the actual existing citations that were already in the article, and justified the mass revert by saying "with no citations." Which is not true: I just read further in the already cited works, so they were still accurate.

There is currently a battle in the NZ parliament in the offing over a Bill that would precisely argue that the Treaty of Waitangi was not a "treaty" as between two nations, but an "agreement" between the British Crown and its new "subjects." The wording that you reverted to is begging the question. So please put back a neutral version that acknowledges that the argument about whether or not the Treaty of Waitangi was a treaty or not is not yet settled. And that there are opinions on both sides of this, with evidence to cite (which I tried to make clear in my addition to the article). Meerkat77 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You should read WP:RECENTISM and WP:RGW. Also what Roger did in this instance (I am unaware of the context of the original complaint, which is from 2 years ago) is not edit warring. It is part of the WP:BRD cycle. It also isn't a mass revert as only one edit as reverted unless I am missing something. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It was several different edits. But I take your point. Sorry! Meerkat77 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: The Recentism page would seem to emphasize just what I said: that it's important to be neutral here, since the topic is under discussion and Wikipedia does not want to be a tool in a propaganda war for or against. That's actually why I changed the tendentious wording here in the first place. But I will definitely be careful in future to be clearer. Meerkat77 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Māori renaissance, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MMP and One Tree Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Meerkat77 (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated New Zealand national rugby union team for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Roger 8 Roger, why? I consider them to be constructive and an increase of the accuracy of the article. Yorkshire Dialect is based on Norse, with influences from Old English. The current article has them simply the wrong way round. Wikimedia guidelines champion accuracy, whereas you are encouraging the continuation of misleading information. Is this a late April Fools joke from yourself yesterday? White Rabbit 79.70.70.215 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Your initial change was questioned by reverting it. Your next step is to debate it in the talk page to get consensus, not to put back your challenged addition. See wp:BRD. Without any reference your comments are nothing more than that, your comments, your personal opinion. You must supply references. See wp:RSS and wp:Cite. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I've noticed your cleanup banner on Fulham, was curious, is there an accepted guideline / style manual that applies to the articles about areas of London? Or perhaps there's an example you'd consider a model one? Wanted to do some improvements, but have no idea what direction and structure other editors consider helpful.

p.s. I part reverted one of your removals. Think it's useful to mention the nature of the population in some way. PaulT2022 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you referring to my edit in February 2020? The tag explains what is needed. Put more simply, the standard is encyclopedic English. The Evening Standard is a low quality source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I assumed the tag was about the layout and structure, not the language, and you had some specific suggestions about those. PaulT2022 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Now, let me make it clear, in international law, treaty will become legally binding only when it enters into effect.

Hence, for an issue with which related sovereign states decide to solve it with an international treaty, the said issue can be said as "legally solved" only when the said treaty becomes legally effective and binding. How a treaty becomes legally effective is, in most cases, stipulated in the treaty. In general, ratifications of participating parties are required and ratifications could only be accomplished AFTER the signing date.

Now, the problem of the original text is that it incorrectly stated that "(Germany) effectively relinquishing these territories to Poland" on 14 November 1990 when the "German–Polish Border Treaty" was signed.

This is legally incorrect, because the said treaty was NOT legally binding on the signing date. So there is no such thing that "effectively relinquishing these territories to Poland" on 14 November 1990.

By the way, the effective date of the "German–Polish Border Treaty", i.e. 16 January 1992, can be found on the Wikipedia page of the said treaty. So, don't you dare to ask me to "make sure it is referenced". Use your mouse to click the link, don't be lazy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Border_Treaty

Based on the fundamental principles of international law, the original text was incorrect and hence I corrected it.

Unless you can provide sufficient evidence to prove that the "German–Polish Border Treaty" became legally binding upon its signing and subsequent ratifications by Poland and the united Germany were actually not necessary and non-sense in terms of law, otherwise, I ask you to refrain from reverting my edition again.

Now, MR. ROGER, tell me, who gave you the authority to say "There was nothing wrong with the text"?

Are you an international law scholar capable of judging the correctness of text in terms of international law? Are you a judge of international court capable of judging the correctness of text in terms of international law? Are you a seasoned learner of international law capable of judging the correctness of text in terms of international law?

I don't think so. Based on your assertion of "There was nothing wrong with the text", I don't think you have sufficient knowledge in the filed of international law to make reasonable decisions in this respect.

Even if you do think you have the authority (from who knows where) to assert that "There was nothing wrong with the text", who gave you the authority to say things like "don't raise your voice"? Who do you think you are? Since when Wikipedia hires ignorant Gestapo to police the volume of its participants' voices and to accuse that others raise their voices?

MR. ROGER, you are not superior than others, know your place. You should know your limit and respect others' expertise. Be humble. Stop policing.

Due to your impoliteness, arrogance and ignorance, I demand your apology. JusticeForce (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've started an RfC on the talkpage of Ben Roberts-Smith that may be of interest to you. AlanS^talk 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Themidget17 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Stop changing the text to suit your personal agenda, all without citations, here and elsewhere." You can disagree with an edit, and you don't need to write me when you revert one. But, as a warning, try to calm personal accusations and hostile comments. I have never had an interaction with you, think before what you are going to type. Thanks. Venezia Friulano (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Venezia Friulano, If you make reasonably large edits that change the meaning of an article and do not reference you changes, you are giving a personal opinion. If you also do not leave edit tags explaining what you are doing suspicion is raised as to your intent. Learn from your actions instead of removing the warning tag I left on your talk page and then leaving one on mine. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:TPS @Venezia Friulano: I see no personal attacks but I do see a pattern of personal attacks and appearance at WP:ANI in your talk page history. If you continue in this vein I fear your career as a wikipedian will be a short and unhappy one. WCM_email 15:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

To add, I don't see your changes to the lede as an improvement, I initially reverted them but have temporarily reversed that whilst I think on the matter. WCM_email 15:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Unhappy and short? I don't know what this is about, but no threats are necessary, calm down, good man.

It's a significant improvement. There was not even mention of the decolonization and fall of the British Empire, something relevant in the history of the United Kingdom. Thanks. Venezia Friulano (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Venezia Friulano, I looked again last night at your edit pattern and saw you were genuine and in hindsight I would have done nothing - I think I saw a couple of changes that appeared a bit pointless: that and your edit pattern of making many changes without leaving a message, gave me the wrong initial impression. However, you could have dealt with this better and not giving me a warning and you would have received a different response. I also saw the ANI texts, which only made me less inclined to mellow my approach.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Although the ANI ultimately did not conclude in a negative resolution for me, my manners could have been much better on Wikipedia. I gave the warning because I thought it was a bit of a rough first approach, but you're right that I could have handled it better.

For me there is no longer such a warning, I withdraw it and I apologize with you. Venezia Friulano (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Thule Island 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. — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks user:SamX for the heads up. I think you are referring to the 1955 photo of the Argentine hut. I placed it on my draft article with other sources to use, or not, in the final draft. I will remove it now. If I want to use it later I know where it is and I will attribute it correctly as you suggest. Same thing if it is the 1981 photo you refer to. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Please explain the reason for your last page return. Kolya Muratov (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Typo Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You yourselves said that Lucy Beck was true. So change the thing about the 3 civilians who died from a mistaken British bombing. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Read my comments on the Falklands War talk page. Being true or not is not relevant. If you cannot understand that you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In the case that you are warning me over reverting an edit that came up as clearly inconsistent, I do not understand your warning, as I did not add any trivia, but reverted to the previous standing edits before the inconsistency. You warned me rather than the IP I was reverting, and then reverted to my edit. Please could you fix this, as I believe this is a genuine mistake and I do not want it to impact my otherwise relatively good record (I don't think I've ever had anything more than a kind "reverted good faith edit").

Thanks EPEAviator (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so and thank you for keeping Wikipedia under check. Happy editing! EPEAviator (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary on Battle of the River Plate,

See wp:BRD. Your unsupported edit has been disputed. Your next step is to go to the talk page to try to get consensus, not to start an edit war.

I'm aware of WP:BRD, but it's a guideline, not a rule. I thought you just misunderstood my edit or reasoning, that's why I reverted. As I wrote on the article talk page just now, I don't see how it's unsupported or disputed.

Secondly, an edit summary should describe the changes being made in neutral language, so accusing someone of starting an edit war is inappropriate. Please read Edit summary dos and don'ts; see also What to avoid in edit summaries.

— W.andrea (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll reply on the talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Your latest edit summary is also pretty combatative. If I could suggest a softer version:

Consensus not reached on talk page. I haven't replied but I still believe it shouldn't be mentioned unless sources agree. Please don't re-add without consensus.

Or something like that. Obviously I don't fully understand your position, which is why I'm asking follow-up questions on the talk page.

— W.andrea (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Your unsupported change, ie adding the Spanish name, was reverted by me because I disputed your edit. That means your edit was disputed. Your next step was to raise the matter on the talk page and leave the main page alone until you get consensus to add the Spanish name. You put back the Spanish name, ie reverted my reversal. That is the start of an edit war which would not have happened if you had left alone until and if you got consensus to put back the Spanish name. Sorry to labour this point but it isn't complicated, and you are not a novice newbie editor. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you could be more respectful. — W.andrea (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in doing any WP:BRD when my edits are only WP:DWS reverting a permanently banned sockpuppet edit in Spain's main Infobox. And I'm also adding a much better source.

That user has a long story of vandalizing Infoboxes with unofficial data (and many sock accounts) yet since he did that in dozens of different wikipages, not all of his edits were reverted. I have added back the official Spanish Statistics source as it was in that page for so many years (the source gets updated once or twice a year) why did you revert me if I'm posting the most reliable source for that topic and I'm also reverting the edit of a blocked sockpuppet? The other user probably reverted me without knowing the background of that edit so I have left a message on his talk page as well. LucenseLugo (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mana.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please read WP:ROLLBACKUSE, I saw you recently rollbacked my edit on Winston Peters which I believe you should of given a better explaination of your revert. Best wishes. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason is obvious so an explanation is not required. I notice you are making similar changes elsewhere. I suggest you get to know something about the topic of an article before making changes to long standing text simply because a guideline implies you can, or if in doubt, use the talk page first. If you want something to do, why not start checking the sources used to support what is written in an article. Often they are not the same, but they should be. I commend your enthusiasm and hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could you please explain why you've reverted my edit on medieval great powers. Sources I've used were more precise than some of those already used in the article, and the addition of several powers like the North Sea Empire or Poland-Lithuania since 1410, instead of just Lithuania in 1450, is obvious. Marcin 303 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your additions were disputed and reverted. Your next step is to take the issue to the talk page to try to get consensus, not to start an edit war. See wp:BRD. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You deleted my photo of British troops in the Falklands. Why? Patrick Neylan (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it didn't add anything of value to the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

You and I are probably of the same mind in terms of disapproving of irrelevant trivia being added here, but I would suggest that a photo (incidentally, not published anywhere else since my brother took it) in the otherwise unillustrated section on defence seems more relevant than a lot of photos on Wikipedia, especially as the landscape is also unrepresented anywhere else in the article. Patrick Neylan (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Please don't make joke edits, as you did to Wellington, Shropshire."

Oh dear, oh dear... I think you allowed power to blind you there.

All I did was add a name to the list of notable Wellingtonians, and be tongue-in-cheek in my edit summary. After all, Naked Attraction is arguably the show that Anna Richardson is best known for, and it is a show that's quite polarising because of what's in it. (I assume that you're among those who disapproves of it, and therefore will not watch it - and that's absolutely understandable.)

Just because I was tongue-in-cheek in my edit summary, does not automatically mean that the edit was a joke one. If I had had the nerve to say "Anna Richardson hosts a show with a lot of genitalia in it" (or, indeed, more vulgar words than "genitalia") in the actual text, that would have been a joke edit - and it would have almost certainly been swiftly undone, too, either by another person or by a bot. And I would have received a warning for it, and this warning would have been absolutely justified - whereas, I'm afraid to say, yours was not.

You will note, too, that at the time of this message, not only has my edit not been undone, but also my summary has not been struck out. I'd be inclined to believe that at least one other person besides you has looked at the article's revision history since I made that edit - and if my belief is right, then that person has, or those people have, seen that the actual edit is fine and that I was being tongue-in-cheek in the summary, even if they don't approve of what I said in it. In other words, that person has, or those people have, seen that the edit is not a joke edit and wasn't intended to be one.

So I think you allowed power to blind you. And I'm sorry to say, it's a fact of life that no-one likes it when someone is blinded by power, and orders other people around when they have no good reason to - not just in the real world, but on the Internet and on Wikipedia too.

I absolutely accept that the actual editing of Wikipedia - that is, putting things in and taking things out of articles' texts - is supposed to be a serious business. And I would absolutely disapprove if someone was crazy enough to, say, change all instances of "Elliot Page" to his birth name, or put in "Eddie Izzard is still a man because the law sees it that way". But when it comes to summaries, what's wrong with being tongue-in-cheek, humorous, call-it-what-you-will now and then, as long as the line is not overstepped completely? (If I had dared to say "Anna Richardson presents a show with a lot of tits, pussies, dicks and arses in it", that certainly would have overstepped the line and striking it out would certainly have been justified - and even saying "boobs, willies and bums" would have been going too far as well.) I am well aware that not everyone gets humour - but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be any of it on Wikipedia at all. You have to agree that there's little or no joy to be had in a site of any kind that doesn't feature humour of any kind - unless, of course, there's a very good reason for this...

2A02:8084:F1C0:4700:413C:716B:665:3901 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

You have just confirmed you were trying to be humorous. As the level 1 template warning says, don't do it. Now, learn from this and move on. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, Roger 8 Roger, but the things I'm learning from this - and from some of your other actions - are...

(1) You are indeed prone to being blinded by power.

(2) You're not ashamed about being prone to being blinded by power.

(3) You don't do humour at all.

(4) You seem to be of the belief that there should be no humour at all on Wikipedia. If you are indeed of this belief, then I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with it. As I said, I am well aware that not everyone gets humour - and I absolutely accept that, too. But I'm sticking quite firmly to my belief that just because not everyone who visits Wikipedia gets humour, does not mean that there should be no humour at all on Wikipedia. There should be room for some humour, particularly in discussions and in edit summaries - as long, of course, as it's within reason. And any rules that say "don't try to be humorous", I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with those too.

(I don't mean to be disrespectful in this aside, either, but... did you actually properly read everything I said up there? Particularly the start of my last paragraph, where I said that I absolutely accepted that the actual editing of Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious business, and that I would absolutely disapprove if someone completely messed around while editing? If you didn't properly read everything I said, and just skimmed through it before making your rather terse reply, then I'm sorry to say, that's pretty bad practice - especially from someone who has been editing Wikipedia for ten years - and, I'm even sorrier to say, another example of you being blinded by power.)

(5) You seem to be one of those people who treat editing Wikipedia as though it's a job. I have to be honest... this is an approach I do not like, and I'm much more in favour of editing Wikipedia as a hobby. Because - let's be fair - no matter how much effort everyone puts in, no matter how many rules there are and how rigorously these rules are enforced, and no matter whether there's humour of any kind or not, no version of Wikipedia - English, French, Spanish, whatever - is ever going to be perfect. And also, there are far more meaningful jobs out there - even more meaningful jobs that involve being in front of a computer.

You may or may not be aware of the American boy who beat Tetris recently, and Jayne Secker saying on her Sky News show that this boy needed to get out more. She was heavily criticised for it, but... maybe she had a point. Maybe it is better to spend more of your time being out and about in the real world, than it is to anchor yourself down in front of your computer, phone or TV all day, doing something that might be meaningful but might also be very frustrating... like editing Wikipedia.

To finish: over a month on, that edit I made to Wellington, Shropshire remains intact - and so does my summary for it, instead of being replaced with "(edit summary removed)". What does that tell you? (1) People see that the edit itself is fine, regardless whether they appreciate the summary or not; (2) if they don't appreciate the summary for whatever reason, they at least appreciate that I had the best of intentions in mind when I typed it, and so they don't allow themselves to be blinded by power and thus make a mountain out of a molehill; and (3) if they do treat editing Wikipedia as though it's a job, they don't make it obvious here.

I'm not the least bit ashamed of my summary - and nor am I ashamed to say that I'd take every chance of typing it again, whatever the consequences. I wouldn't use the exact same words each and every time, however, because then it would become more boring than anything else (and obviously, I would never use words that are too vulgar).

If you have properly read all of this instead of just skimming through it again, then by my reckoning it should have taken you at least three minutes.

2A02:8084:F1C0:4700:2923:CF0A:88F9:C4DC (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That was a long message.. 137.119.208.90 (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, wow, wow. The person at this 2A02 IP range makes an edit that's poorly judged in not one way, but two - they fail to provide a source when they ought to have done, and they make a bad attempt at humour in the edit summary - and when Roger 8 Roger justifiably warns them for making a joke edit, their response is to petulantly lash out at Roger 8 Roger not once but twice (and along the way bring up that Tetris boy and that Sky News presenter for no good reason), with no remorse whatsoever for any of their actions.

Roger 8 Roger, if I were you I would have been bold, and not only reverted that 2A02 person's poorly-judged edit (for those two very good reasons) but raised the matter with the admins too. They would have taught that 2A02 person a well-deserved harsh lesson, that's for sure.

Anyway, that edit has now been reverted. Hopefully that's the end of the matter once and for all. 37.228.203.14 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Kia ora, regarding your edit to revert my change on Port Hills:

1. Your revert removed the link to the Ōmawete / Coopers Knob page, which was the reason for my change in the first place.
2. Other names of hills in the Port Hills referenced in that article (for example, Tauhinukorokio / Mount Pleasant) use the official dual-language name as recorded in the NZGB entry, so using the full name is not without precedent in the same article.
3. I don't think there is anything wrong with using the official name, rather than the "common name". In fact I feel the official name should be preferred in an encyclopaedia context.

I don't think that revert was productive, especially given that it removed a useful link to a related article. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your post.

1/ I corrected my mistake and put back the link straightaway to Coopers Knob, so it wasn't removed.

2/ Yes, some other place names display the dual name, but not all.

3/ Wikipedia policy is that we use the common name so there is no point discussing what we think is better to use, common name or official name. WP policy is a rule that we must :follow, like it or not: it is not a guideline. That means the official name is not used. If the official name is the same as the common name then that is a coincidence, but the :name being used is still the common name. If you are not already aware of this, the dual name problem has been the topic of countless discussions for years. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry, I’d missed that you’d restored the link. -- David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

All good. What I wrote above about policy isn't quite right. Best to view Wp:COMMONNAME direct. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Acknowledging the famous group ' Sounds Incorporated ' as Notable ', and an entity which meets the editorial criteria as having (sic), A page of its own , shousmeansld mean then that the information can be reinserted into the subject's body matter, leaving the new sub-heading extant, (as I now see it's still being used for its intended purpose for Boy George). Thanks. Heath St John (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Heath St John Boy George is notable in his own right, probably more so that the band Culture Club. He gets his own article, and inclusion in this Barnehurst list, because he is wp:notable. I couldn't find any sources about Wes Hunter which means he is probably not notable. His name comes up only in unreliable sources or in passing on a page about the group Sounds Incorporated, and even those pages are not ideal. The group is not a person. If he is notable there should be some sort of obituary after his death but I could not find anything. I initially thought you were a novice editor but I can now see that isn't the case. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

According to Google ngrams, "facade" is far more popular than "façade" (See ..... Christchurch Central City)

Not true. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Both spellings are possible. I haven't checked google ngram myself but I have checked a few dictionary sites that give both spellings. The frequency of use is not the point however. The second part is relevant and applies to most, but not all, occasions when diacritics are used on assimilated English words that have dropped their use. If you disagree, prove it! You need to show that facade is used significantly less than façade in English RSSs. If you don't, the other reason for changing to façade applies, that the change is made for an alternative (opinionated) reason. For others reading this, IMO that alternative reason is to try to show that use of diacritics in English is common and not to use them amounts to an error. That reasoning therefore backs the practice by you and many others of smothering English words with a NZ bent with macrons to promote the Maori-ness of the words. So, I repeat, if you want to use façade please show me why. Kind regards, Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an odd thing to say considering the name of the Wikipedia article itself is spelt "façade". If you disagree... I sugest taking to that articles talk page, not in an edit summary. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If I may, I will re-formulate your argument because you haven't done a good job. In this facade debate, the preferred spelling for this article is "facade" as both spellings are acceptable, which means that the original spelling ("facade") is preferred per MOS:VAR.

Your mention of opinion and POVs throughout these topics is ironic considering what an encyclopaedia is. Just like dictionaries, encyclopaedias reflect the most common usage, which in this day and age, is with macrons. That'd mean you are the one with the opinion, as it no longer reflects the language's use.

If you really are worried about the language being smothered, then I have a job for you, which is to get rid of the pandemic-level Americanisation of spellings on New Zealand articles. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

1/ When I first saw the cedilla added by Alexeyevitch I thought, from personal knowledge, that the use of cedillas on the word facade was probably about 50-50. I checked some dictionaries and my opinion was confirmed. That meant adding a cedilla was pointless and must have been to make a point, ie POV. I then saw the sentence I quoted on a blog and thought it was a neat summary so I copied and pasted it. My view hasn't changed - that adding the cedilla on the word facade serves no purpose, except to make a point, which I have said IMO is all wrapped up with this promotion of all things Maori. 2/ WP should not be used as a source so what the article 'facade' title is doesn't matter. 3/ I agree with Panamitsu in that there is a shift to using diacritics in English and that shift will gradually mean they become more the norm. I have always said that and never denied it. I do not think we have reached that point though, except with a very few exceptions, such as the word Maori itself. Also, it does not affect my reasons for resisting the excessive use of macrons and all things to do with promoting Maori language and culture here in WP. My reasoning has been expressed countless times and never properly countered. Incidentally, what about all the other words in English coming from French that sometimes use diacritics and sometimes don't? Do we have to go round changing words like cafe to the supposedly correct spelling with an accent? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

1) French words have little do to with Maori words. I'm not sure why you're making the connection to a POV here.

3) I agree with you that completely omitting macrons is problematic. On Taupō we have the text, sometimes written Taupo, which is something that I would argue for inclusion for many of these articles, as I did on Māori people the other day. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My view on Taupo is simple. The correct name in English is Taupo. The word is anglicised from the Maori name and has well assimilated into English. The new name is the Maori name, not a corrected English name. To say otherwise amounts to misinformation which is self perpetuating. That simple fact that we are now meant to use the Maori name, not the English name, has been overlooked in the numerous debates in public and in the media where we are told we are doing something wrong if we don't use the Maori name,ie with a macron, and this has not been helped by the clumsy creation of dual names by NZGB. We are even being told we are pronouncing place names wrong if we don't pronounce a word as a Maori speaker would. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not entirely true. That is a loan word. Is it incorrect to use "restaurant" as it does not come from English? How about facade (with or without the diacritic)? With your mention of the media / NZGB, it sounds to me like you are trying to right great wrongs. And no I don't pronounce these names the Maori way, although I try to, and I am not told that I pronounce them wrong. —Panamitsu (talk) 11:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Roger, I feel like you're trying to push an agenda here. Intentionally not adding macrons to words and stuff that use them... for example on the "Māori language" article you might've intentionally spelt "maori" instead of 'māori" (which I corrected) when most of NZ sources uses macrons nowadays, thus, it's common use.

Secondly, User:Turnagra had a similar conversation with you in the past about macrons...

Thirdly, these aren't moral comments you add when talking about Māori as a whole... considering your likely a New Zealander yourself. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to get too involved here - as you said, I've made my point in the past - but I would like to echo the point that macron usage is common and accepted in New Zealand English, and note that there is community consensus for using macrons. Roger, if you want to go against that, it's a bigger process than ranting about it on various talk pages and making disruptive edits. Turnagra (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

1/ I don't type in a macron because I can't be bothered finding out how to on my keyboard and because there is no need to, unless I am trying to write in te reo which I am not. I expect one of our friendly macronauts to appear later and add the macron, which I can't be bothered spending any time making a fuss about. A more interesting approach is when the Maori-promo brigade goes a step too far, as in the recent debate about Pakeha/European settlers in New Zealand. 2/ Yes, I am very aware of the risk of becoming a Right Great Wrongs person. I take solace though in the knowledge that I am far from being the only editor who has concerns about the pro-Maori line being taken. I also hardly need say the new govt has a mandate to undo much of the pro-Maori stuff that has sneaked into govt and society in recent years. I don't think the govt can do anything about Wikipedia where, IMO, exactly the same pro-Maori agenda has become entrenched. 3/ A personal view is that the problem with promoting Maori stuff in society is simply the way it is being done - by trying to make one new amalgamated language from two languages that are distinctly different. Forcing te reo down the throats of English speaking people is counterproductive and won't work in the long run. 3/ I'm not sure what you mean about loan words, Panamitsu. Loan word is an unfortunate term - it really is a borrowed word. A third of English is borrowed from other languages, including restaurant. Once borrowed/used a foreign word becomes assimilated, quickly or slowly, and in doing so changes from being a foreign word into an English word, that follows the rules of English not the rules of the language it came from. What is happening in NZ is a reversal of the normal process of assimilation. Assimilated English words are being un-assimilated and given back to the foreign language (te reo) they came from. Because that in an unnatural process it has to be forced, through such things as new legislation, but as I said, in the long run that won't work. WP should IMO not be part of that artificial process of forced change. 4/ About this pro-Maori line being WP consensus, there is a limit to consensus: it does not override policy and, because the consensus is rooted in an artificial forced agenda, it constantly leads to situations that are quite frankly silly. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider that to be adding deliberate typos to articles... like you did recently on the Māori language article. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am from Germany and love the English language, English literature and culture; that`s why I very often read articles of the English wikipedia. Since I am a new Wikipedian, I would very much like to know whether I can communicate with English Wikipedians like you via Wikepedian "channels". So would you please be so kind as to answer me so that I can see if that is possible?

Best wishes Martin Buchan 2 (my pseudonym in honour of Man United`s Scottish central defender Martin Buchan, who played in Manchester in the early 1980s) Martin Buchan 2 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You can say what you want to here although it should be about Wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hallo Roger 8 Roger,

thank you very much for your quick reply.

Best wishes

Martin Buchan Martin Buchan 2 (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Tell me what did i do bad in the article that i changed. Im really tired of guys like you. I will keep changing the articles. And i dont wanna the answer of "That doesnt change the value of the article" ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@User:ULIFOX 3XX First, please read wp:BRD. That means when somebody reverses your change your next step is to raise the matter on the article's talk page to see what other editors think and don't change the article back to what you wrote. Second, most of what Argentinians know about the Falkland Islands is factually wrong. Your changes to several articles were also wrong. For example, Argentina did not exist in 1820. It didn't declare independence in 1816 either, because it didn't exist. Something did happen in Buenos Aires in 1816, but it wasn't Argentina declaring its independence, nor was it Spain granting independence to any state. The history of the Falkland Islands is complicated which can makes it easy to get it wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh? At the Independence of Argentina, all the provinces declared it except the federal league, but it was later integrated. It is ignorant to say that Argentina did not exist in 1820. Under that logic, none of the countries that later became independent should exist. And to say that what Argentines know is wrong is something that only a British person would say favoring himself. If you don't know the history of Argentina then don't talk about it as if it were an event that really happened. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Argentina did not exist in 1816. The disorganised provinces did not form a coherent territorial unit. Nobody recognised them as a new state, they were a group of rebellious people within the Spanish viceroyalty. Argentinians today, at every social level. view those events anachronistically in hindsight. However, we are talking about the Falklands, abandoned by Spain in 1811. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my snarky edit summary! I should remember one of my UnwrittenRulesOfWikipedia™ which – if I ever expressed it clearly – would be something about how the chances of my saying something stroppy and inappropriate increase greatly when I am in exactly the wrong place and talking to exactly the wrong person. Apologies.

Now then, these words. I have tried to get my head around it (no pun intended) but I can't quite see it, and you clearly can. I could spend a of words, and time, on "it is this? Or is it maybe this?" but actually I can save several moments of both our lives by just asking you, since you know and I don't ... so please do enlighten me!

Cheers, DBaK (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The past simple of hang is nearly always hung. The main exception is when hang is used to mean execution by hanging, eg 'he was hanged at dawn'. I think this guy was murdered and his body was then tied to a rope and raised off the ground. My interpretation of that is the past simple should be hung not hanged. The meaning of lynch from a dictionary is "(of a group of people) to kill someone who has not been found guilty of a crime at a legal trial, esp. by hanging (= killed using a rope around the neck)". I think that means the lynching was the murder (not by hanging) and the then subsequent hanging from a tree is a separate action, therefore use hung not hanged. Thanks for using my talk page.

Thank you! I was thinking that it was perhaps something along those lines. I'd got myself confused around the fact that yes, he was killed, nay murdered, but not actually by hanging per se. I'm grateful for the clarification, and will edit more carefully in future. Cheers, DBaK (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey Roger 8 Roger

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Southshore, New Zealand, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

   Can you detail which edits offended thee?
   Hey Roger 8 Roger (talk)I notice on your (talk) talk (talk) talk page you seem to have lost a few edit wars.
   BTW do you live in New Zealand? 222.153.176.212 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"Transport is NZ English". This statement is not in the New Zealand English article. It also seems unlikely and is unsourced. (I don't use NZ English so I wouldn't know if or if it isn't.) Thx. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to know, it's obvious. The word for buses and cars is transport not transportation. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

user:153.111.229.202 Please note the link to WP rules provided. The name to use is the commonly used and understood name by English speakers, as in the link provided. The official name of a place is not the name to use. If they are the same that is coincidental. I encourage you to create a user name and profile, it will help establish credibility. 222.154.118.60 Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

   Nah, I'm good. 210.48.190.73 (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk) 

This Article need its name to be "Estuary of the Heathcote and Avon Rivers / Ihutai" How does that happen?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.176.212 (talk)

It doesn't because it doesn't. The name used is the commonly used name which is not always the official name. Politics plays no part in Wikipedia. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Kia ora Roger - can I ask how you came across that discussion that you just engaged in on Talk:Australia? It seems curious that you showed up soon after I had engaged. Turnagra (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Because the article's on my watch list, of course along with quite a few other articles. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss whether a citation of a primary source is valid or not, please use the talk page. I've invoked a violation of WP:RS and could really just as well simply remove the paragraph outright.

The onus here is on whoever wants to keep the content, not those questioning it. If you want to keep sub-par content you make the effort. Peter ^Isotalo 11:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I questioned your rigid approach to the rules and lack of effort to improve what was there. The detail is not questionable, and there was a tag requesting a better source. It would have taken very little extra time to find a RSS than to wipe away what was there. For anything contentious that approach would be fine. You didn't even bother putting the link to the bull elsewhere, like ext links after improving the link. Whatever, someone else will make the effort. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you were trying to accomplish with this edit, but a blanket revert of a talk pages (including both new comments and an archive bot) isn't the way to go about it. MrOllie (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm VeryRarelyStable. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. You have at least three times recently, while reverting edits of mine, left edit summaries that were aggressive and bordered on personal attacks – in addition to talk page comments in a similar vein. I would remind you that this uncivil behaviour is unwelcome on Wikipedia and can have unfortunate consequences if it comes to the attention of moderators. —VeryRarelyStable 09:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the restrained tone. I would have altered my edit summary a little soon after posting it but that was not possible. I did reflect that the tone was too blunt, so I am sorry. I accept that most editors simply want to improve articles. I looked for a reference for the first sentence (because there were so many other references being used in the lead) and found one. I changed indigenous to first settlers because that is what the source said, not for any other reason. I know that sometimes what good, eg academic, RSSs say differs from what lower quality sources say, eg media snippits, and that can, IMO, sometimes lead people to draw the wrong conclusion about my edits. Perhaps on this occassion I was overly touchy. Regarding Moriori, there will be a lot of information available from the reecent 'renaissance', some of which will inevitably be slanted one way, ie not neutral. Trying to make that detail more balanced isn't always simple, but it doesn't indicate an anti-Moriori intent, something I think some people assume. Same goes for Maori topics. But, anyway, I accept the point of your message and will take it on board. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to History of New Zealand 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 information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. 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. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 New Zealand Licence is not a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@User:Diannaa I'm not sure what copywright I've infringed? I used the NZHist website for detail and referenced it. I remember copying and pasting a couple of sentences from that NZHist site and then re-arranging the wording on the WP site to fit the article better and to avoid a direct copy. Is that the problem? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The probelem is that while some of the content was adequately paraphrased, there were several sentences that were pretty much identical to the source webpage. — Diannaa (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll bear that in mind next time. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aston Greathead, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Napier and Blenheim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Barnehurst. Thank you. Imzadi 1919 → 18:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A possible nuisance sock returns? See its other posts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. I would remind you again that making personal attacks, including in edit summaries, is not welcome on Wikipedia and will have unfortunate consequences if it continues to the point where it is brought to the attention of moderators. —VeryRarelyStable 09:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That topic has been discussed before, possibly before your time. Maori kids being caned for speaking Maori is good story to arouse the emotions but it should be handled with care. There are so many variables to consider it cannot be viewed the way it usually is in society and the media. There is a good case for saying the 1867 act was beneficial for Maori at the expense of non-Maori. I'm not saying that but, once again, there are so many considerations. Having now had a shower myself, I think my cold shower remark should not have been made, even if it was intended to be light hearted. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

VeryRarelyStable..Can you please reflect that you reverted my change that I explained in the edit tag. Did you look at the sources to see if I was wrong before reverting my change? Or did you not assume good faith and assume my change had some sort of anti-Maori intent? I think you are more than experienced enough to know the difference between opinion and sourced detail. So, my wording in my second edit tag might have been a bit blunt, which I would phrase differently next time, but I don't regret my change to the article. I was probably more frustrated at your revert because that sort of thing keeps happening - editors not bothering to follow basic wiki rules, especially about anything to do with Maori issues. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I am working thru the Opawa article attempting it to get it to GA standard. After an unsuccessful attempt earlier, I'm still committed to making this a good article like Māngere Bridge (suburb). It would be good if readers would find the Opawa article interesting to read and I don't want articles to contain unnecessary/unencyclopedic information. St. Albans could get some improvement. The writting was not up to standard on the first nomination and needed to be improved.

Listing information about bus routes, local cafe stores, distances (in most cases), is unencyclopedic and replacing CCC sources with reliable secondary sources will overwhelmingly help it in a second GA nomination. Listing some information about sport is OK. Thank you for your edits noticing grammar errors. A good article on Wikipedia should be readable and have reliable secondary sources not CCC PDF files. After this I will move on to other topics. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

About yesterday's edits, this below might help. You should have someone explain it if you don't get it. About city suburbs, there is a natural limit to how much you can put into an article before you start adding unnecessary clutter. You seem to have done that for Opawa by putting in anything at all that has a vague connection with Opawa. Quality is not the same as quantity. You probably could halve the size and double the quality of the article.

My comments regarding only the first two sentences of Governance...

1/ Prior to 1916 implies the riding ended in 1916, (and is still not specific anyway - when prior to 1916? .. 1910? 1899? Better is to start with "In 1915..." because that is the year in the source when this meeting happened.

2/ The source does not say Opawa was a riding. Please read it again, carefully. Opawa was probably in a riding called the Opawa Riding, along with other settlements. That is all we can get from the source.

3/ The source refers to the Heathcote County (a defined area which included the Opawa Riding) - it doesn't mention the Heathcote district (what is the Heathcote district anyway?)

4/ Christchurch City Council was the employer of the electrical engineer, that is the only reference to CCC. What you have written is quite different.

5/ More generally, this has got almost nothing to do with the governance of Opawa, certainly not without more detail to put the Opawa Riding in context. If anything, this belongs somewhere else - about utilities or power supply - but you will still have to put it in context (ie more information) otherwise better to leave it out altogether. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I have removed the first paragraph. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello there

I reverted your edit because this is a high level article about NSW and I can't see the value of adding one writer's opinion to the facts. Surely all we need to establish is that Cook claimed the area he had just explored for Britain. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I expected my change to be reverted, so no worries. However, I think what was/is there wasn't ideal. The source is really primary, a quote from Cook himself, with the secondary source - the historian - putting the notion of 'Cook claimed Australia for Britain' in a better perspective. I think possession wasn't properly taken until 1788 when occupation began and a governmental structure was in place, with 1770 just creating a partial incomplete claim. My wording wasn't ideal but I still think what was there should be watered down a bit because it does come across as slightly grandstanding, which I think is what the historian was getting at. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Governor Phipps.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

You may be interested in this Oceania-related conversation: . Drew Stanley (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Roger 8 Roger,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
―Panamitsu (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Moved here from section above on edit warring of March 2023 - best keep in chronological order. These comments are not directly related. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Roger, you also reverted my edits, which were based on the actual existing citations that were already in the article, and justified the mass revert by saying "with no citations." Which is not true: I just read further in the already cited works, so they were still accurate.

There is currently a battle in the NZ parliament in the offing over a Bill that would precisely argue that the Treaty of Waitangi was not a "treaty" as between two nations, but an "agreement" between the British Crown and its new "subjects." The wording that you reverted to is begging the question. So please put back a neutral version that acknowledges that the argument about whether or not the Treaty of Waitangi was a treaty or not is not yet settled. And that there are opinions on both sides of this, with evidence to cite (which I tried to make clear in my addition to the article). Meerkat77 (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You should read WP:RECENTISM and WP:RGW. Also what Roger did in this instance (I am unaware of the context of the original complaint, which is from 2 years ago) is not edit warring. It is part of the WP:BRD cycle. It also isn't a mass revert as only one edit as reverted unless I am missing something. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It was several different edits. But I take your point. Sorry! Meerkat77 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: The Recentism page would seem to emphasize just what I said: that it's important to be neutral here, since the topic is under discussion and Wikipedia does not want to be a tool in a propaganda war for or against. That's actually why I changed the tendentious wording here in the first place. But I will definitely be careful in future to be clearer. Meerkat77 (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Meerkat77. There is not any debate about the legal status of the treaty - it is 'a legal nullity', as I think the court said in ?1871. If it did have a legal status we wouldn't need the act of the 1970s and the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal - a roundabout way of trying to give some legal weight to the treaty which did not, and still does not, have any power by just itself. What the current proposed legislation by the ACT party is doing is not to change the treaty. It is trying to overide the opinion (that has real consequences) of one judge who described the treaty as a 'partnership'. That description has had follow on effects that contradict basic human rights of equality. The bill also says that in future the principle of 'everyone is equal in law' takes precedence, whatever anyone decides the treaty actually means tthat might be to the contrary. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I take your point, but I think you are actually taking a stance on an issue that's not settled yet (as logical as your argument may be). Does some writer, journalist, or legal expert of some kind write what you said, so that you can cite them? If the court called it a "legal nullity" in 1871, and a judge described the treaty as a "partnership," and there's a current battle over its status in the NZ parliament, then there would seem indeed to be debate about the legal status of the treaty. At least at this time. The point about human rights principles is great, and I think the source for that argument should be included here, as should the whole discussion (insofar as there have been people arguing, overriding, etc.). Maybe this actually needs a separate section in the article, instead of an answer. Meerkat77 (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

My opinion of what has been happening in the last few decades is that a portion of population has been trying to elevate the treaty from its position as one of many agreements between the Crown and native peoples in the 18th and 19th centuries to something with legal weight in the 21st century. That is difficult to do, if at all possible, without twisting or changing 21st century values of what is right and wrong. The 1975 act and the tribunal was a way to do that by bring in vague 'principles' of the treaty but that has gone off course as these principles have become better defined by courts and large parts of society have jumped on the 'treaty express' to make excessive claims and statements that are wrong in fact and contrary to the intent of the reforms begun in the 1970s. This article is a good example of some of these excessive claims - its full of ramblings about stuff with very little relevance to the 1840 treaty. A closer analysis of them shows they are often not backed by quality secondary sources, are misreadings of sources, or are simple not sourced. There is a generation growing up that is being filled with all sorts of questionable detail about the treaty. The treaty is the treaty. The treaty bandwagon and the Waitangi tribunal separate topics. Also separate is the effect the treaty had on NZ society post 1840. This was due to the particular circumstances at the time of the signing and of nz in the decades after the signing, that has lead the treaty to become ingrained into nz culture that supposedly binds everyone together. Sorry if this is off topic, tell me if this is not answering your comment. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

The history of the legal interpretations and intentions is fascinating. It is maybe a bit off topic, but I appreciate it because it explains more for me. What you are describing, I think I would call the "Nachleben" of the original treaty. The literal writing that happened, in English and in Maori (because it seems like there was a separate, Maori-language version, right?), in 1840, is one thing. What people do with the fact that there is now a written document that needs to have some meaning, or just be torn up and replaced if not--that's another. I am not sure they need to go into separate articles, though. The "excessive" claims are a part of the Nachleben: how was the treaty interpreted, why did people want it to say certain things (which it might not have originally said), what was its effect on NZ law--the reforms of the 1970s sound like a really interesting topic, actually. U.S. constitutional amendments and judicial interpretations offer sort of the same phenomenon. I can understand the frustration, though--maybe it can be resolved by putting the later interpretations into their own, timebound sections (e.g. "1950s to 1970s", and so forth), with proper citations to modern sociologists and legal historians who think they understand the twists and turns. Maybe there is a modern survey of "meanings of the treaty over time"? When I looked in my university library, I found this: Attwood, Bain. ‘A Bloody Difficult Subject’: Ruth Ross, Te Tirit O Waitangi and the Making of History. Chicago: Auckland University Press, 2023. Attwood tries to cover 70 years of changing interpretations and uses, and explain why specific changes were happening (political motives, economics, etc.). Maybe there are a few other surveys, especially ones that go back to 1840.

I can definitely see an argument for keeping everything that has to do with the original treaty and its origins in a separate article, though. Meerkat77 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, this is probably going to point toward "land back" movements and the politics of reparations, which are hot topics all over the Americas for sure, since the 1970s. I'm guessing probably also in NZ and Australia? Meerkat77 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, that is some genuinely terrible guess work policy pseudo legal analysis Roger from someone gatekeeping the Treaty of Waitangi page. I'm glad you invited me to this page! Now I see! ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh hi again Rog. My editing is not disrupting, its improving the content of a page using legitimate information and I have entered details in most cases on the talk page. Your reversions of my changes is disruptive to good content. I see you are quite infamous for what you have accused me of: edit warring.

I would like to note at this juncture, that while you have been threatening me with such actions as blocking, and warning me about edit warring, you have never addressed the substance of the changes I have made, the justifications I have offered, or the comments I have entered on the talk page = gate keeping.

For example, you haven't seriously attempted to refute the points I have made about the McKenzie quote but you keep reverting it back in - that's the definition of edit warring. In addition my ongoing project of highlighting the problems with treaty the Treaty and te Tiriti in one page is now focused on the "context" description, in which I have repeatedly entered text reflecting that te Tiriti promises tino Rangatiratanga to Maori. You and others seem concerned by this, but it is a fact, and a problem taht arises through the decision you were involved in to have one page to cover both documents. ~2026-10604-40 (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You change the article; your change is reversed; you then have to wait for clear consensus before putting back your change; you don't get consensus but you put back anyway; that is edit warring and you do it repeatedly, which is disruptive. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Kia ora, I notice that you edit a lot on New Zealand topics and I wonder if you are located in New Zealand? If so, did you know that there is a Wikipedia conference in Christchurch in May? We even have some funding available to assist people from outside Christchurch to attend (by covering their travel costs). Registrations are open here: https://events.humanitix.com/2025-wikicon-aotearoa-chch Or feel free to put any questions on my talk page. Regards, MM MurielMary (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You reverted my edit of Drake Passage's short description, calling it "pointless". My edit was in fact not pointless: the short description that I replaced violated the rules at WP:SDFORMAT in two ways. The first violation was of the rule that a short description should never end with a period. The second violation is of the length rule. This is somewhat arguable, but it is clear that descriptions longer than 40 characters are some degree of discouraged. The description that I replaced was 84 characters, and my replacement was 61 characters—still a bit long, but less of a problem than the original. — LucasBrown 14:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Then rewrite it to include fewer words that do not create a sentence thereby needing a fullstop. Adding Southern Ocean is pointless-it is known as the Atlantic-Pacific route. My broader advice is to start improving articles with relevant text and references. That will require a lot of work and time, and sometimes will be beyond your ability (know your limitations). Playing with typos and punctuation is pointless and usually irrelevant. I appreciate you are a serious editor acting in good faith. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

1. I did "rewrite it to include fewer words that do not create a sentence thereby needing a fullstop."

2. Adding "Southern Ocean" was not pointless: the Pacific and Atlantic are also connected via the Strait of Magellan, which is not part of the Passage, and arguably via the Panama Canal and Arctic Ocean. Also, the editor whose short description I replace also saw fit to mention the southerly nature of the Passage.

3. I do, in fact, improve articles with relevant text and references when the topic is within my expertise.

4. Playing with typos and punctuation is not pointless, because an article with correct grammar will always be better than an otherwise-identical article with grammatical errors. Wikipedia benefits from typo correction just as it benefits from added facts and references. — LucasBrown 09:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:William Henry Doveton Haggard, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

No modifiques mi edición de la página en inglés del imperio español, es algo completamente cierto y un consenso general. On 24 April 2025, by user:DanielG.M.S.S.N (Please do not modify my English version of the Spanish Empire page; this is completely true and a general consensus.)

Your recent editing history at Spanish Empire 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—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.
Note that User:DanielG.M.S.S.N's edits are not WP:Vandalism, and are thus not an exception to the edit warring restriction. Donald Albury 00:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

A little surprised by your warning. The reversals were not the same, they were about different changes by the same editor, so no, the 3RR was not breached. I notice you have also had concerns about this editor, specifically his/her use of Spanish and issued a warning, and immediately removing his talk page comment. A bit heavy handed I thought seeing as an instant translation is available online and his edit was on a talk page, and when translated was clearly in good faith but I let it be. Rather than issue me with a wrong 3RR warning maybe it would have been more useful to have paired up and you giving this new Spanish editor a warning of your own, with a explanation. Note, I had given an explanation - he is added un-sourced detail (with a nationalist hue). You no doubt have seen the Spanish editor is making similar opinionated changes elsewhere. Un fuente abrazo. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

From WP:Edit warring:

The three-revert rule states:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions. - Donald Albury 01:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I don't think I'm the one with a nationalist bent. The changes I made are clearly true and backed up by countless sources. I don't understand why you're talking about me like that, and don't worry, from now on I'll always write in Spanish. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 11:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Hope you're doing well.

Here are the links to the sources I've used about Popper. This is the article from Chile's Revista Marina.

https://revistamarina.cl/es/articulo/julio-popper-y-el-origen-del-diferendo-maritimo-austral-2

The author explicitly blames Popper for starting the beagle conflict by pushing his own interpretation of the treaty. Apparently he was interested in exploiting a gold mine he had found in one of the disputed islands, and wanted to take advantage of the fact that chile was in the middle of a civil war at the time. he also claims he was very influential thanks to his friendship with argentine foreign minister Zeballos. I didn't mention this in my edit because it's a bit of an extraordinary claim! I'm not sure you can blame a single individual for starting a territorial dispute between two nations. Nevertheless, the argument is solid. Note, the web version of the article doesn't have the list of sources. these are in the PDF, but it's subscriber-only.

The map of Popper's antartic proposal was much harder to find. no argentine sources have it. Maybe because it doesn't show the Falklands as argentinean? You have to go to Magallanes University's online repository and run a search for "boletin antartico chileno 1999" and download issue 2. here's a link.

https://gaia.umag.cl/

(let me know if you need parts of these texts translated)

Bob meade (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your editing this page, but could you please explain further your justification for undoing all the edits by BronzeGoat418, a student in my history course on Conquest in the Early Americas? I'm referring to: Restored revision 1288309927 by 203.13.3.93 (talk): This detail with references should be in the article below. The lead is a summary of the main points below and usually does not require citations.

First, many other lead sentences––here and in other articles––have citations. Second, the handful of sentences contributed by BronzeGoat418 were relevant to setting up the context of the conquest and don't fit in any other section. When BronzeGoat418 did try to create a separate context section, another editor reverted their work, claiming that this was too much information for the article. Third, you reverted edits that BronzeGoat418 made outside of the lead without offering a reason for doing so.

BronzeGoat418's edits were drafted and reviewed multiple times in our course, so I'd appreciate it if you could offer more of an explanation. Thanks. Levywabash (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Levywabash: Just a note that the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section states: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. and A lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate, although it is common for citations to appear in the body and not the lead. Wikipedia being what it is, I am sure there are unnecessary citations in the leads of many articles, but I feel that we should keep them to a minimum, and that, in general, if something is important enough to be in the lead (and not everything in an article is that important), then it needs to be covered in the body of the article with citations to reliable sources as needed. As for setting context, I think that can be a vital element in an article. (I've been known to a make a 'Background' section as much as half of an article.) I'm sorry your student ran into opposition to doing so. Perhaps something could have been worked out in a discussion on the article talk page, but I understand the time constraints of a class assignment. Donald Albury 20:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, My "padding" reversal was removing from this sentence the bolded words When the Spanish arrived at the borders of the Inca Empire in 1528, it spanned a considerable area and was by far the largest of the four grand pre-Columbian civilizations. This is simply an English writing question. The deleted words added nothing to the meaning of the sentence and amounted to personal opinion (considerable compared to what?). They were therefore just unnecessary padding. My second and much larger reversal has been neatly explained thanks to Donald Albury. I thought the inserted text was fine and should have been put back, but in the article below first. Some or all of it might then have warranted a mention in the lead. IMO, the lead section was full of other citations that should also have been removed or thinned out, but that doesn't justify the insertion of more citations. A useful exercise for your student might be to look at the whole article, including the lead, and see how it could be tidied up and presented better. That will require considerable time and a fairly detailed understanding of the subject so as to be able to create reasonably correct weighting. I am sorry if my edit upset you or your student in any way, that was not my intention. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, also to @Donald Albury. I understand that this is a shared enterprise, but I hope you can understand that it is frustrating when many hours' worth of careful research and revision are undone.

I completely agree that the lead in this article is unwieldy. We determined that the task of moving some of those paragraphs elsewhere was too great for the scope of our course and instead chose to work within the existing structure. My student's edits were made with the aim of tightening and correcting some of the lead. Would it make sense to start a discussion on the article's Talk page about moving much of the lead material into a "Background" or "The Inca Empire before Spanish Arrival" section? After reading this lead many times, I think it may be as simple as adding a new section heading after the first paragraph.

The student had also made small but important changes to the section on Atahualpa's capture. These were removed in the same reversion. Did you think these problematic and, if so, could you please explain why?

Finally, regarding the "padding," that wasn't BronzeGoat418's writing. I agree that the phrase "spanned a considerable area" is unnecessary. The phrase is still in the article, however. It seems to have been reinserted when you reverted BronzeGoat418's contributions. Levywabash (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I starting a talk page discussion is a good idea. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Roger,

I have added relevant references to the changes I made to the New Zealanders article, mainly the colloquial name Kiwi, the minor languages, and the ongoing secularism of the population.

Please feel free to take a look, and I also made some changes to punctuation and grammar to help make certain parts of the article read better. I just ask that you actually go in and remove the improper bits, instead of just reverting all of 'em, and essentially making the article worse. from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 04:56, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

is not a reliable source and you should have gone to the article talk page to discuss this. I suggest all future commentary on this matter is taken there. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Just for future reference, you added townandvillageguide.com to Chillaton. This is not a reliable source. It's an AI-generated site scraping content from other places. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can you please explain why the infobox only uses the flag, name and map. Every nation I added was originated from a reliable source, and fact-checked on Wikipedia itself, and when you reverted the page, it deleted all of my progress. Edit: I am expressly adding sources for the Chagos Islands claims.TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

The infobox is a very brief summary of the article and not the place for a long list of countries. As in my note on your talk page, you should work with small edits until you become more familiar with the way wikipedia works. Especially remember that anything you add without a reference can be reverted. Learn how to use citations and why they are needed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Roger 8 Roger in this context you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheIconic'Qwertyuiop' reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: ) 10mmsocket (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Greetings! According to and other sources, "jail" is now the most common spelling in British English, which appears to be the one used in County town and County corporate. According to MOS:COMMONALITY, the "most commonly used current variant" is preferred. -- Beland (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I think MOS:COMMONALITY is the wrong way to approach this. The term 'county gaol' should be viewed as one word, not two (a compound noun), about something that no longer is in use. The word was always spelled gaol, not jail, so changing it is a form of anachronism. It would be similar to renaming magna carta to magna charter or great charter. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This search on Google Ngrams shows that in British English, "county jail" is by far the more common spelling of that two-word phrase since 2000. MOS:COMMONALITY has affirmatively chosen the use of anachronistic spelling. It does not say "the most commonly used variant in the history period under discussion", it refers to current usage. If we were to use time-period-appropriate spelling and grammar, articles about the 1500s would be nearly unreadable. The same policy requires us to use "Magna Carta" for two reasons: that is what it is still called, and it is a proper name. Beyond spelling, though, we do try to use period-appropriate terminology, for example using "British North America" and not "United States" before the 1770s. -- Beland (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• See Talk:Beechworth and wherever else this ends up (Suggestions?) Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Your style of editing is often disruptive. I cannot help but think that sooner or later, somebody will drag you to ANI. Maybe you should chill a bit. Schwede66 00:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on what example? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I have had a look at WP:DE and cannot see anything from the examples given there that applies. The closest would be the opening sentence Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. This may extend over a long time on many articles, which is not clearly defined. I sometimes disagree with certain approaches taken, including any consensus reached, and I give an opinion on the talk page. If I think an edit is clearly wrong, I change or revert it, with an explanation that usually involved what I see as a breach of Wikipedia rules, with edit wars don't happening. What's wrong with that? I don't think giving an opposing opinion is disruptive or 'not getting the point'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on your disruptive editing on the page about Chris Luxon where you ignore Wiki policies and delete well sourced material you don't like. I agree with Schwede66 that you should chill a bit. Kiwimanic (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Roger. I'm looking at recent deletions that were made to History of New Zealand on the basis that content was unreferenced. As I read Wikipedia:Verifiability, a key criterion is that "All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment." I believe that some of the deleted content is verifiable, even though there is no citation at the moment. I also know that one could quote parts of that policy to fully justify the deletions. But let's think about what is best for Wikipedia. The best solution for unreferenced but verifiable content is for references to be added. Simply deleting verifiable, uncontentious content is second best. "Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added." I intend to restore some of the content shortly, then to add some citations, and to add 'citation needed' tags to still unreferenced content to allow time for more references to be added. I do not intend to restore all the content - for example, one part had been tagged as 'citation needed' since August 2017, so editors have had ample time to add citations to that part. I wanted to explain all this to you directly, rather than just through my edit summaries, in the hope that we find common ground for betterment of the article. Nurg (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with your approach - change what you want. I have recently deleted a lot of unreferenced detail on different articles and I did wonder if I was being too rigid and deleting stuff that was easily verifiable. However, I decided to carry on deleting. My thinking was that it simply takes too much time to sift through everything without a reference to pick out the good from the bad and that by leaving it there it would simply just stay there forever because others would think the same. Therefore a fresh start was, IMO, a better approach. A related problem is the way many sources are being interpreted and used. It is very common to find text added that is not confirmed by the source, or only partly confirmed. This also takes a lot of time to check and sort out. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "William Henry Doveton Haggard".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one 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 read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Captain William Hobson's concern, here in relation to settler activity in the Company's name. See linked "New Zealand Company" for incorporation by royal charter. PH AKL (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That source is pretty useless - its about a flag and has a few unattributed lines of text. There's a link a supposedly more detailed account that gives a couple more lines of text, that differs, which confirms the source is pretty useless. The second account says: "By flying it, the New Zealand Company was asserting that its purchases were legitimate." Why not find a proper secondary source, such as a book or an article, about what happened, and read it in full, and use that as a source. That means, don't find short snippets from a low grade source from a google search. Before adding detail to this or any article you should have a broad understanding of what the article is about. Adding all these almost irrelevant 'facts' that are totally unbalanced, just adds clutter that devalues the article. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The New Zealand Company did or didn't receive incorporation by royal charter? A matter of detail and citation for "New Zealand Company" page editors? PH AKL (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you be clearer, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Whether or not the company got a royal charter is irrelevant unless you can show why it is relevant to Hobson's article, ie about Hobson. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Treason: Settlers of a British company by royal charter under another flag? British subjects subject to British law. Hobson, as governor, asserted authority. PH AKL (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Until you can form a coherent argument to make it clear what you mean, I'm not going to continue with this discussion. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Report "Auckland Times" historical curiosity of his death or delete it along with its citation. It would be difficult for wind-up pocket watches and mantle clocks of the day to keep time with the same precision as modern day smart-phones. Pronouncement of death can follow seconds or more after the moment of death, and then, how long does a person linger after physical death? Hobson, could have "departed this world" moments or minutes before 12:00. There is no place to argue 12:00:00 / 00:00:00 versus 00:00:01, modern time standards or even time zones, here. Hobson's article has clearly stated for some time, for certainty, his death day as 10 September 1842. PH AKL (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources (and this 1842 newspaper cutting) say he died on the 10th - as well as his gravestone. That is all we need to know. Please don't use what you think the writer of the source meant to say because that is original research. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Auckland Times reported: "This event took place at 12 o'clock, on Friday evening last...". That is Friday, 9 September 1842. It doesn't report the event as Saturday "the 10th", however much one would fancy it does. "Report Auckland Times historical curiosity of his death or delete it along with its citation." "Hobson's article has clearly stated for some time, for certainty, his death day as 10 September 1842." "Find sources: "William Hobson" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2021)" PH AKL (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, please write more clearly, I don't know what you are trying to say. However, if you cannot understand that 12.00 midnight on Friday evening means exactly that then you should question what you are adding to this article and possibly to others. We assume a reasonably educated level for editors. Most people know that midnight on Friday evening means midnight on Friday evening. What else do you think it means? Midnight on Fridsay morning? I accept your good intent to improve this article and I hope this discussion helps you do that. I also suggest you look more closely into what makes a good RSS, and what is not a good source. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Some folk argue that the next day starts at 12:00:01 / 00:00:01. It's all irrelevant. The Auckland Times definitely did report the event as the Friday (9 September) side of 12:00, not the Saturday (10 September) side of 12:00. This an historical curiosity or co-incidence of moment, and the Auckland Times did consider it and did report it that way. If it deeply troubles you, delete it and the citation. As all of those Auckland Times editors are dead now, and the newspaper gone, there is no-one to write to. PH AKL (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Nearly all sources, including good reliable secondary sources say 10th - that is all we need to know.
• A number/time exactly in the middle defaults forward -fact.
• Evening is not an exact time period, it is flexible, which means it can be used to describle a time some might call technically in the afternoon or technically in the early hours of the next day. You don't seem to understand that. What is important hear is 12.00, midnight, which is a fixed point.
• Anything written 200 years ago must be interpreted with care, it should now be treated as a primary source, which you are not doing. That is why we need a secondary source to tell us what it means. You are deciding what it means which means it is just your unqualified opinion. See the note above - use what secondary sources say.
• This is all of minor importance to this article -there is plenty of room to improve it. I suggest you spend time reading about his whole life, using books and articles, and don't google search his name to find isolated sentences, otherwise you will fail to get a balanced wiew of his life. Do some research on his life during the Napoleonic Wars when he was a very young man, and forget about New Zealand for a while. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  The Auckland Times said "Friday" and "evening". The owner and editor was Henry Falwasser (c. 1790–1846). Definitions from the dictionary:

  Evening: "the period of time at the end of the day"

  Morning: "the period of time between midnight and noon"

  Liminal: "occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold"

  "Anything written 200 years ago must be interpreted with care..." as with anything written today and in the future, particularly by AI.

  Good health is your best asset. Take care and best wishes. PH AKL (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit to the page New Zealand English, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. 2600 etc (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You appear to edit in good faith but you keep repeating the same errors in different articles despite being told why you are wrong. The usual spelling in NZ is 'encyclopedic', not 'encyclopaedic', as confirmed by dictionaries. Therefore, use 'encyclopedic'. Even if 'encyclopaedic' is not wrong, use the significantly more common of the two, namely 'encyclopedic'. Also, if there are two options available because they are both used equally, use the option that is first used in an article, which in this case is 'encyclopedic'. You have changed 'encyclopedic' to 'encyclopaedic' which is clearly wrong on both counts. I see you have made similar repeated errors elsewhere which is why your edits could be called disruptive. I suggest you ask why your edits are reverted before assuming you are right and everybody else is wrong. If you disagree, you must not revert and start an edit war but instead use the talk page to discuss. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have copied and posted the comment below from that Christopher Luxon talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Roger8. Perhaps this will help to clarify 'disruptive editing'. In one of your edits you deleted a significant amout of material I added including the entire entry about Luxon being a teetotaler and the entire section about his friendship with John Key. Your explanation for this was 'No youtube'.

Panamitsu has now rewritten the section about Luxon's teetotaler status and found another source entirely (which cites the same Dom Harvey interview). Panamitsu's explanation was also about avoiding YouTube. I'm happy with his edit.

What's the difference? Your wholesale deletions are disruptive and you got my back up. Panatsu's editing is constructive. He went to the trouble of finding another source (even though wiki does not have a blanket policy against using YouTube). Do you understand the difference between your disruptive approach and his constructive approach? Kiwimanic (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

What Panatsu did is exactly what I wanted you to do, and in so doing to realise that youtube should not be used as a reference. I told you what the problem was. I'm not under any obligation to do your work for you. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a classic example of your condescension - which is driven by arrogance. It is not your job to get me to do anything. Your job, should your choose to accept it, is to edit wiki according to the policy and guidelines - rather than try to push other editors around. Kiwimanic (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's another example of your disruptive approach. On 1 November, @Nurg commented on your Talk page about "recent deletions [you made] that were made to History of New Zealand on the basis that content was unreferenced." Nurg said: let's think about what is best for Wikipedia. The best solution for unreferenced but verifiable content is for references to be added. Simply deleting verifiable, uncontentious content is second best. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added."

Your response was "I did wonder if I was being too rigid and deleting stuff that was easily verifiable. However, I decided to carry on deleting." It seems you don't listen to, understand or accept the feedback you get from other editors. You just delete material and in the process, you piss a lot of other editors off. When you get constructive feedback, you simply ignore it and justify your own behaviour. To put it bluntly, your editing approach is rigid, condescending and disruptive. Kiwimanic (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's another example going back to 2019. @Akld guy wrote: "To clarify because you are not listening: it is better to tag unsourced claims which are probably true (like this one) with "citation needed". That gives any editor the opportunity to source the claim." It seems you have been ignoring constructive advice from other editors for a long time.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kiwimanic (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't remember but after quite a lot of searching I found it here. The site probably accounts for why I did not leave a reference, but I'd be highly surprised if the quote did not come from her, it's just puzzling it doesn't come up with any normal google search. I was going to suggest just removing it as uncited but I can see that that section has already been removed, which is unfortunate seeing as there are other referenced quotes from top experts, given on the Historynz website which makes the same point about the 1835 declaration. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Content you added to the above draft appears to have been copied from https://archive.margaretthatcher.org/doc02/E415E0802DAA482297D889B9B43B70DE.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, some content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words, even in drafts and sandboxes. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Roger. In this edit you quoted C. Orange but did not provide a ref. Are you able to provide one? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't remember but after quite a lot of searching I found it here. The site probably accounts for why I did not leave a reference, but I'd be highly surprised if the quote did not come from her, it's just puzzling it doesn't come up with any normal google search. I was going to suggest just removing it as uncited but I can see that that section has already been removed, which is unfortunate seeing as there are other referenced quotes from top experts, given on the Historynz website which makes the same point about the 1835 declaration. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Following this, I looked at what has happened on the article today and can see the changes have only just been made. You can see my wee gripe on the talk page about the nzhistory site. About the subsection on the legal effect of the declaration, it certainly does need a clean up, with some less than good edits by me a year ago. However, I think the point I made is valid and some quotes from historians should be added, but more carefully than I did earlier. Maybe some time an editor will spend some time doing that. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello there

Sorry to have dragged you back into the discussion on Palestine and terra nullius when you were clearly reluctant to participate. You warned me what would happen if we stuck our noses into the Palestine-Israel conflict. But now it's a matter of principle for me so I will start a RfC from which, of course, you are free to keep a wide berth.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. No more pinging from me on this issue.

Cheers Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Re: this reversion... I helped write WP:N. Ae you saying that the Māori language is "unimportant clutter"? Grutness...wha? 04:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If detail does not have references it generally means it is not notable enough to be used in Wikipedia. What you added had no references. If it is notable there will be references that you can add. However, text books of any kind are not secondary sources so usually should not be used. Anything added to an article that is not referenced, and cannot be referenced, amounts to clutter and clutter by definition is unimportant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You deleted it while I was busy looking for references. It's now referenced. It's common proactice on Wikipedia to add material and then find the references and add them after the initial edit. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, all good now and sorted. I usually find a reference first before adding what it says, which to me is more logical. I've noticed, and been puzzled by, a very large number of referenced statements of fact in various articles where the reference used has has a connection with what the editor had added but it doesn't actually confirm what has been written. Not intending to criticise, but that situation could be explained by editors adding personal opinion first and then adding a reference with only a loose connection to what they have already written. Until now, the only explanation I have considered is that editors don't read their sources properly. When I say a very large number, I mean more the half, which is worrying because it completely devalues Wikipedia as source of information. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right. In this particular instance, I got called away to work while I was editing. All sorted now though! Grutness...wha? 12:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Kia ora - I'm not commenting just yet on the substance of the argument, but I couldn't help notice this edit where you told the IP editor not to remove warnings. Just wanted to flag WP:REMOVED for future, which states that users are entirely within their rights to remove things from their own talk pages, and that doing so can be taken to mean the warning has been read and acknowledged. Turnagra (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You're quite correct. I thought the same as I wrote it. I was a little annoyed because I was adding a level 3 warning to the level 2 warning I had added earlier, only to find it had disappeared. In my rush to add the level 3 I took the simple option of putting back the level 2, instead of pondering on a different approach. Despite that, it is still not good practice I think to delete posts, especially warnings, just because you don't like them, which is what happened there. It was not just my level 2 warning that the IP had been removed BTW. But, yes, editors can basically do what they want to on their own talk page. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Roger 8 Roger. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "William Henry Doveton Haggard".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I had trouble finding enough relevant sources to create an article with enough depth to it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Turnagra (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

As a conclusion of the noticeboard discussion referenced above, you are topic banned from Māori topics, broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed in six months. In the future, should you decide to appeal, instructions are at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:42, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe could you provide some clarity as to what is covered by this topic ban? Would editing about a person of Maori descent, (but not notable/related for that) be a topic ban violation? Would edits that mention Maori be covered by it? E.g. 'Queen Elizabeth visited Auckland and was greeted by a group of Maori'. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

This policy section: Wikipedia:Banning policy#Topic ban, has examples. Where it says “weather”, just substitute Māori. In your first question, as long as the edit doesn’t relate to the subject of their Māori descent and doesn’t mention it, the edit would be fine. In your second question, any mention of Māori would be covered. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:33, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Your recent edit to William Hobson would count as a topic ban violation. Specifically ' It was also reported there was a morning Uhunga (expressions of grief) in the town by a great number of Māori.' and 'However, almost every Māori man carried a musket and these were loudly fired off after the military salute. Adding to the spectacle, most of the Maori females had their hair ornated with wreaths of pretty flowering supplejack'

I'd recommend self-reverting and then just restoring the part of your edit that didn't touch on the Maori. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've not been advised of what any ban entails, just assumed I'd be blocked from certain articles, which this one, was not one of them - it's about Hobson. I will however take your advise and reverse it. As a general observation, I wonder what is in any way contraversial about it? It is a slight change to the reflect more accurately what the sources say. Thanks for the message though. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

There was nothing inherently wrong with the edit, but a topic ban means that if you edit anything related to the topic you can be sanctioned for it, even if the edit is completely fine or mundane. Even an edit that did something like correcting a spelling error could be a topic ban violation.

Topic bans are not enforced via partial blocks, in part because that would be complicated. It is up to you yourself to adhere to it. The topic ban is 'Māori topics, broadly construed', although I might clarify with the administrator who imposed it as to what 'Māori topics' are. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

A topic ban does mean that you can edit articles like William Hobson but if there is anything relating to Maori you must ignore it, there are rare exceptions such as vandalism, copyright violations, and BLP issues, but it is usually best to let another editor deal with those.

This may lead to some issues where a biography has a noticeable gap or suddenly cuts between two parts because you need to avoid mentioning/editing things. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I stopped following the discussion at what seemed to be near an inevitable end and assumed I'd be told of the outcome, which I was not. I also chose not to take it further simply because it would take too much time and hassle. Now that you've told me, I now understand what the outcome was. Despite my obvious opinion, I will avoid "Maori issues". However, I agree that that is a very wide ranging and non-defined topic - it could mean almost anything if you wanted it too! About this article on Hobson, I had done some work on the section a while ago, from memory there was some confusion about dates around his death caused by very old and unclear newspaper comments, so what I've just done was me continuing with earlier clarification. Anyway, thanks for the advise. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC)