Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
- Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
- Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
- Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
- No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.≥
- If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to .
- Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
- Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 12:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Merge proposal
As a concerned editor of the American Revolutionary War article you might be interested in a recent proposal to merge the Anglo-French War (1778–1783) article, covering battles involving Britain and France, with the France in the American Revolutionary War article, covering the French army and navy helping in the fight for American independence. You can voice your opinion here. See Talk Page Table of contents for related discussions. -- Neutral and Anayomous.
Merging proposal
I just saw your notice on the ARW talk page. I'll have to check in on that. You might also want to look into the proposal to merge the Anglo-French War (1778-1783) article with the France in the American Revolutionary War being voted on and discussed on the talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at French Revolution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: a consensus for the lede was already established on October 12, even receiving explicit and clear agreement from editors who dissented to earlier article content. A user who did not know of this consensus and who became involved in the discussion far after it was agreed upon replaced those changes. Can you explain, Doug Weller, what the appropriate method is for dealing with this behavior – altering changes after a consensus has already been established? The discussion at present is (or was) focused on other matters. 021120x (talk) 13:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- That doesn't affect the 3RR rule. Two editors have reverted you, not just one. And you are on shaky ground when you use an edit summary to attack another editor that way. You can try WP:DRN or WP:RFC. Doug Weller talk 14:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: thank you, but what is the policy regarding editors who refuse to comply by the consensus? The first edit undid the changes that replaced the consensus, which the same user then restored (the summary comments were a reference to the talk page). There is no expectation that agreed upon changes are supposed to be respected and upheld? This matter has already been brought to the DRN. Suppose another DRN review is held, and/or another consensus is established, and then another editor reneges on the changes, or a new editor comes in and undoes them. Do we simply continue having (a potentially endless stream of) discussions? 021120x (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Just a sugestion
Maybe you don't realize how your comments are being taken... I know you can hear your intentions and tone of voice, but no one else can on the internet. Maybe you mean everything you are saying/doing to be constructive- if so, I'm here to very nicely tell you its not coming across as well intentioned, constructive criticism. If you continue as aggressively as you have been, you will not see much success. Robert is one of the most level headed patient editors I know.... Me, not so much. I'm not saying you are the only one being aggressive and rude on that page, but You brought it to ANI.... and YOU are the one still beating that dead horse. And YOU are the one ignoring the ongoing discussion and trying to insist it be over. I am strongly recommending you take a step away for a day or two, and come back refreshed. Its not personal.... but you seem to be taking it that way. Everyone wants the same thing- the best possible article. Diverse perspectives improve the article.... as long as those expressing them work together. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)