Hibarnacle
Hibarnacle, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Hibarnacle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC) |
April 2018 edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:British Isles naming dispute, 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. The Banner talk 09:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Stop edit
Stop going around reverting the edits of a user you disagree with. This is not helpful to the project, and it implies you are a single purpose account who's only purposes is to hound said user. If you continue reverting edits from a particular user as you have been you will be blocked from editing, especially since many of your edits are incorrect. This is disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- You cannot defend disruptive and incorrect edits by claiming their reversion is disruptive. Now away with you.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Stop hounding and harassing other users. Additionally stop reverting valid edits as you did in this edit. Changing references to County Londonderry to read County Derry are considered vandalism and are against the agreed namings per WP:DERRY since there has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing. This is your last warning. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- To repeat: You cannot defend disruptive and incorrect edits by claiming their reversion is disruptive..Hibarnacle (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually you appear to have decided that the edits performed by a particular user, namely Mabuska, are incorrect and wrong and appear to be singlemindedly hounding them through their edit history to revert their edits that have sat undisputed for some time. That is indeed disruptive. I am telling you now to stop hounding this user. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Mabuska's edits were disruptive and without concensus and frequently violated NPOV. There's currently a healthy selection of Talk page where he is swimming against the concensus and yet continuing to edit regardless. Intriguing that you seek to white-knight him. I hope you make better arguments than he does. I hope you make arguments at all. Once more - stop attempting to bully users into silence to defend disruptive edits that you are in favour of. Now make a better argument or go away.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have no issues with Mabuska's edits being overturned due to discussions on the talk page among multiple editors resulting in changes to the articles, that's how Wikipedia works. I do take issue with you choosing to edit and pick out this user to singlemindedly undo their edits and am saying if you continue to edit in this pattern you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- For the third time: Mabuska's edits were disruptive and without concensus and frequently violated NPOV. Disruptive and NPOV edits are reverted on Wikipedia. If you disagree, Conservapedia is sure to accept you with open arms. For the third time: stop attempting to harass users who are removing disruptive and NPOV edits. Now say something new or don't respond, we both know that you can't block a user and cannot make an argument to block me for reverting disruptive edits just because you agree with their author's politics. Now away with you.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have no interest in Mabuska's politics, that's between him and well whoever. I am interested in a practically no edit account hounding another user on Wikipedia and making inappropriate use of talk pages. You want something new, go edit a page that does not involve you reverting an edit of Mabuska's. At this point it doesn't appear that you're here to contribute with a neutral manner to the encyclopaedia but have some kind of agenda. You opened with personal attacks against other users, and are hounding another user. This behaviour has since changed to you looking at my edits and making an accusation that I'm a parachute account of Mabuska. I suggest you edit some other areas for a while and stop looking at undoing the edits of another user. If you do continue on this path you will be blocked, and I do have the ability to do that. Canterbury Tail talk 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- You're attempting to create a narrative out of thin air. I did not "open with personal attacks" against anyone. I've been reverting NPOV and disruptive edits that violate this sites rules and paint a very clear agenda being pushed by the author. You can disagree with the latter if you like, but not the former. You meanwhile have been hounding me all day and have made at least one attempt of covering yout tracks by deleting segments I introduced to a talk page that you took umbridge with. Now stop trying to intimidate me, and stop trying to bully other users. I see him continue to make NPOV, disruptive or non-constructive edits then I will continue to revert them. If I see you defending NPOV, disruptive or non-constructive edits I will revert them and report you. Now stop harassing me. If you feel strongly for his edits, then make your case in the comments section and await concensus. You should frankly know better.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- And while I'm at it; my edit count has nothing to do with the quality of my edits or the intent of my character. That's something I'd expect to hear on a highschool forum from a child who wants to appear bigger than everyone else.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have no interest in Mabuska's politics, that's between him and well whoever. I am interested in a practically no edit account hounding another user on Wikipedia and making inappropriate use of talk pages. You want something new, go edit a page that does not involve you reverting an edit of Mabuska's. At this point it doesn't appear that you're here to contribute with a neutral manner to the encyclopaedia but have some kind of agenda. You opened with personal attacks against other users, and are hounding another user. This behaviour has since changed to you looking at my edits and making an accusation that I'm a parachute account of Mabuska. I suggest you edit some other areas for a while and stop looking at undoing the edits of another user. If you do continue on this path you will be blocked, and I do have the ability to do that. Canterbury Tail talk 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- For the third time: Mabuska's edits were disruptive and without concensus and frequently violated NPOV. Disruptive and NPOV edits are reverted on Wikipedia. If you disagree, Conservapedia is sure to accept you with open arms. For the third time: stop attempting to harass users who are removing disruptive and NPOV edits. Now say something new or don't respond, we both know that you can't block a user and cannot make an argument to block me for reverting disruptive edits just because you agree with their author's politics. Now away with you.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have no issues with Mabuska's edits being overturned due to discussions on the talk page among multiple editors resulting in changes to the articles, that's how Wikipedia works. I do take issue with you choosing to edit and pick out this user to singlemindedly undo their edits and am saying if you continue to edit in this pattern you will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Mabuska's edits were disruptive and without concensus and frequently violated NPOV. There's currently a healthy selection of Talk page where he is swimming against the concensus and yet continuing to edit regardless. Intriguing that you seek to white-knight him. I hope you make better arguments than he does. I hope you make arguments at all. Once more - stop attempting to bully users into silence to defend disruptive edits that you are in favour of. Now make a better argument or go away.Hibarnacle (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Actually you appear to have decided that the edits performed by a particular user, namely Mabuska, are incorrect and wrong and appear to be singlemindedly hounding them through their edit history to revert their edits that have sat undisputed for some time. That is indeed disruptive. I am telling you now to stop hounding this user. Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- To repeat: You cannot defend disruptive and incorrect edits by claiming their reversion is disruptive..Hibarnacle (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Stop hounding and harassing other users. Additionally stop reverting valid edits as you did in this edit. Changing references to County Londonderry to read County Derry are considered vandalism and are against the agreed namings per WP:DERRY since there has never been a County Derry in the history of Ireland. If you continue to do so you will be blocked from editing. This is your last warning. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
You have made multiple personal attacks today and open with this one and follow with such as here, which have no place here and are not a valid use of an article talk page. Edits like this one are particularly worrying due to accusations of POV when there is nothing that could be construed as a POV in it, other than your decapitalizing of the country name.I have no issue with your edit count if the edits are of quality, but your edits today are worrying as you appeared all over my watchlist solely and specifically undoing edits of Mabuska's. If you stop hounding Mabuska and edit in a neutral manner elsewhere then we have no issues whatsoever. Oh and deleting something covers up nothing, every single edit is clearly available in the edit history for the world to see. Do note that I am a neutral editor who specializes in the Northern Ireland related disputes, I am frequently called both Republican and Loyalist, often on the same day by people who don't like their edits or versions of truth being reverted (this is background, I'm not accusing you of this). Canterbury Tail talk 19:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have not. I've made one post which one could possibly construe as a personal attack, which is why you did not cite more than one post, as we both know. And I've allowed you to delete that comment uncontested because I've been told it was the wrong place to raise the issue of the user's continued violations. Regarding the second edit; Northern Ireland is a recent political entity which Mabuska inserted into a description of it's geographical location is, so Ireland, being a geographical location and not a state, is a better and non-political descriptor, rather than the purely political and one-thousand-years-anachronistic Northern Ireland. The reason I'm appearing over your watchlist today is because this is the day that I discovered Mabuska's NPOV and disruptive edits. Had I discovered them over the past few months when they were made I doubt we'd even have bumped heads. As it is, here we are. Additionally, I apologize for suggesting I considered you a sockpuppet or parachute account. That was directly after you removed what I thought was a correctly placed comment regarding Mabuska's actions and I saw it as both incorrect and shocking. I was in the wrong and I'm sorry for casting doubt on you with that.Hibarnacle (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- This editor is either a troublemaker or a sockpuppet making groundless and spurious accusations based on nonsense. Editors who appear from nowhere and spuriously start calling editors loyalist or republican (of which I have been called both) almost always seem to come from the opposite end of the spectrum and can't continence or understand that not all people who don't agree with their views are cut from the same cloth. Mabuska (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- If this user wants to see what a loyalist editor is like and behaves like then look at the history of User_talk:Factocop an actual loyalist editor. Obviously such editors only look at edits that back up their alleged claims. I don't see Hibarnacle making reference to edits that have been accused of being nationalist/republican such as arguing for the Irish name inclusions for Eglinton, County Londonderry and Lisburn. Heck just look at Talk:Lisburn#Name_in_Irish_Language. Hardly the actions of a loyalist. Mabuska (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- This editor is either a troublemaker or a sockpuppet making groundless and spurious accusations based on nonsense. Editors who appear from nowhere and spuriously start calling editors loyalist or republican (of which I have been called both) almost always seem to come from the opposite end of the spectrum and can't continence or understand that not all people who don't agree with their views are cut from the same cloth. Mabuska (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have not. I've made one post which one could possibly construe as a personal attack, which is why you did not cite more than one post, as we both know. And I've allowed you to delete that comment uncontested because I've been told it was the wrong place to raise the issue of the user's continued violations. Regarding the second edit; Northern Ireland is a recent political entity which Mabuska inserted into a description of it's geographical location is, so Ireland, being a geographical location and not a state, is a better and non-political descriptor, rather than the purely political and one-thousand-years-anachronistic Northern Ireland. The reason I'm appearing over your watchlist today is because this is the day that I discovered Mabuska's NPOV and disruptive edits. Had I discovered them over the past few months when they were made I doubt we'd even have bumped heads. As it is, here we are. Additionally, I apologize for suggesting I considered you a sockpuppet or parachute account. That was directly after you removed what I thought was a correctly placed comment regarding Mabuska's actions and I saw it as both incorrect and shocking. I was in the wrong and I'm sorry for casting doubt on you with that.Hibarnacle (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018 edit
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 1978 Lisnamuck shoot-out, 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. POV and personal attacks The Banner talk 21:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Troubles Restrictions Notice edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.This isn't restricted to just the period of the Troubles or articles to do with the Troubles, but also edits and topics that can be linked as being Troubles or loyalist/republican argument related. Mabuska (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Hibarnacle/sandbox/Hibarnacle edit
Hello, Hibarnacle. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Hibarnacle".
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 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 13:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 12 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dunadd, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Irish and Gaelic. 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) 06:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
January 2024 edit
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 Domnall Ua Lochlainn, 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. Please use the 'Articles needing cleanup' category if this is what you believe it needs. Your 'correction' was incorrect. Synorem (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)