User talk:Hanoi Road

Welcome!

Hello, Mike Galvin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Sean Lucy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ... discospinster _talk 16:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sean Lucy

The article Sean Lucy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 16:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I have removed the PROD, because the little bit of research I've done indicates the topic is notable. However, please add reliable sources to your article. It is currently unsourced, and therefore all content may be challenged for its verifiability. Thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Mike Galvin, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

July 2018

Hello, I'm DuncanHill. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ernest Shackleton have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. If you disagree with the reversion you must raise the matter on the article talk page, per our Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and not undo the reversion of your edit. As you will see from the talk page there has been a lot of discussion relating to Shackleton's nationality etc already. Review what has already been said, then start a new section. DuncanHill (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should raise your concerns on the article talk page, not on my talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE stop your disruptive editing. Go to the article talk page and seek consensus there. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are being disruptive because you are deliberately ignoring WP:BRD, despite being repeatedly advised of it, you are being disruptive because you refuse to seek consensus for your changes despite being repeatedly told that this is what you need to do. DuncanHill (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so reluctant to seek consensus for your proposed changes? It's really very simple - you go to the talk page, open a new section explaining the changes you wish to make and your reasons, then other editors join in the discussion and in time a consensus is reached. This consensus - which may be to make the changes you propose, to keep the status quo, or to make other, agreed changes, is then applied to the article. This is how Wikipedia works. When an editor decides that he knows best and refuses to engage in discussion, as you are doing, it not only undermines our whole way of working, it often ends up with that user being blocked or even banned. DuncanHill (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion concerning your edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ernest Shackleton shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 20:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my closure of a request at RFPP. In my opinion both sides are edit warring and both sides are risking a block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Mike Galvin! You created a thread called Dear Jure/De Facto at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indent correctly on talk pages

Please read WP:INDENT and apply it to your comments on talk pages. This will make it easier for other editors to follow the discussion, and to reply in the right place. DuncanHill (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in The Troubles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Twofortnights (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Twofortnights (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage nicely with other editors, or you are likely to be blocked from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ronin (film), you may be blocked from editing. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI (June 2019)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48h for edit warring, as you did at Ronin (film) and Ernest Shackleton. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of any edit war re: Shackleton. Made a recent addition with reliable source which was uncontested. The situation with Ronin is different. Slightlymad has become somewhat malicious about a correction I've made to his project. Have made several attempts at rational debate with this guy but hit a brick wall. Would be grateful if you'd check out RfC (today's) on the RONIN talk page. This will give you a clearer idea of the problem. I also made a separate addition to the Ronin page recently with reliable sources (Washington Post, etc) which Slightlymad deleted without explanation. All is not as it seems here. 48 hours ban absurd in the circumstance. Mike Galvin (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Song for a Raggy Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page De La Salle (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) 07:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Your belligerent behavior at Talk: Generation X is completely unacceptable. There are countless websites where you can indulge your penchant for disrespect, flaming, trolling and cheap insults. Wikipedia is not among those websites. Civility is one of the pillars of this encylopedia. Correct your behavior now if you wish to keep editing this encylopedia. I am serious. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on A History of Violence‎; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. DonQuixote (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Grandpallama (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, violation of the three-revert rule, battleground behaviour and incivility in edits to A History of Violence and its talk page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to indent properly

Please read WP:INDENT and properly indent your comments on article talk pages. It is sometimes almost impossible to work out to whom or to which comment you are addressing yourself. DuncanHill (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Grandpallama (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are at 5RR currently, I would strongly suggest you stop edit warring and give an undertaking to use the talk page to prevent a block. W C M_email 01:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please do not email me like that again. It's totally inappropriate, that sort of communication should be done openly.

I note you've already been blocked for edit warring on the article, it's likely with your current attitude you will only get a series of escalating blocks. W C M_email 02:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up, Dude. We're not in MI-5. Hanoi Road (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ernest Shackleton

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Your block history suggests you may be running out of chances. The term WP:BATTLEGROUND should apply to this kind of comment to another editor. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made changes to any article. Please see Talk Page at Ernest Shackleton in which I agreed with another editor that change should be made, which he did (Duncan Hill). There has been no push-back by me. Indeed, I suggested to him thirty minutes or so ago that, for the sake of uniformity, he should make the same changes to other, similar figures. I don't mind legitimate blocks, but this is an abuse. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do some homework before acting in this way. The tone today has been accomodating and conciliatory. The only change to the Shackleton piece has been made by another editor, with a note of support from me. On what basis, or for what reason, has this block been made? Hanoi Road (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hanoi Road (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Change made by other Editor

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Change to Ernest Shackleton piece made today by another editor (Duncan Hill), with agreement and support from me. Tone is conciliatory and reasonable. Further suggested he apply this standard to others similar figures. What's the reason for this block? Hanoi Road (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do not "understand" why I have been blocked. That is because there is no reason for it that I can see. Duncan Hill made a change today which I agreed with and supported. I also encouraged him to apply this criteria to other, similar figures. Don't be lazy. Read our exchanges. And since I don't "understand" the reason for this block, why don't you explain it to me? This is a classic example of Wikipedia 'gangs' acting in concert and bad faith, not to mention abusing the blocking process. I repeat that the last change made to the Shackleton article was made by Duncan Hill, who has my full support. Now try again. And this time, don't seek refuge in obscurity. It's a poor disguise. Hanoi Road (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, for all the sense this makes, it may as well be Trump who runs the thing. Hanoi Road (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hanoi Road. You say, "I have not made changes to any article". Are you sure? The AN3 report shows you making five reverts at Ernest Shackleton on November 14th. This breaks the WP:3RR. Any reviewing admin might look over the edit history of Ernest Shackleton since 7th November and study your lengthy edit summaries over that period. You are constantly declaring that the Irishness of Shackleton hasn't been properly acknowledged. You consider 'Anglo-Irish' to be inadequate, you want him to be purely Irish. Opinions have differed on this issue on Wikipedia over the years. (People are saying on Talk that he was called 'Anglo-Irish' at the time this became a featured article). See a long talk thread, opened by you, with as yet no clear result. Consider waiting for a formally-closed RfC before trying to adjust hotly-contested nationalities. EdJohnston (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are not up to date. Read the end of that thread. I finally suggested to Duncan Hill that he change the thing to Anglo-Irish, which he did. Frankly, I just wanted concensus and I think we got it. My final message to Duncan Hill was that he also look at Goldsmith, who probably also needs to be changed to Anglo-Irish. In fact I can think of four entries offhand described as Irish that need to be looked at.

You might do well to have a word with Grandpalamma, who exhumed this by stalking me from another article ('A History of Violence') which I corrected, but not before he angrily arranged a 3-day block. The correction stands, of course, because the previous content was incorrect, and I sense that infuriates him. He then got this going. The LAST change made to Shackleton was made by Duncan Hill yesterday - and that's fine by me. I'll admit the article has some 'history', but not recent history. In the interests community harmony, I surrendered the point, but not before airing my views. You want to block me? Go ahead. I think that says more about your sense of fair play than it does about my occasional tendency to fume. Hanoi Road (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm IdreamofJeanie. 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, such as your addition to Talk:Francis Bacon (artist). 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. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Control your trolls. I just one of them to fuck off. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Guliolopez (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now there are two, because I started another. Hanoi Road (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for personal attacks, which you've been warned about before. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended this to indefinite after further investigation. DrKay (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]