Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Tegyll brau parddu to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Lopifalko (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case you are not watching my talkpage, I have responded to your unfounded personal attack there. Please read it, and either retract your accusations of disruptive editing and vandalism, or provide evidence to support them. You might want to read WP:NPA for guidance. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Important notice
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.
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The specific details of these sanctions are described here.
Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Welsh fiscal deficit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Dee. 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 is never a great idea to try to do substantial reformatting of talk pages, even when they look - to you - messy and difficult to follow. If you haven't seen it already, please be aware of the guidance at WP:TPO. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ghmyrtle - no part of your link discusses the RfC specifically. The suggested format on the RfC page#Separate votes from discussion (Separate votes from discussion) does detail the correct way of different sections, with one specifically for 'Discussions'. I've done that, exactly as recommended. Is there a problem with keeping to the suggested, tidy format? Cell Danwydd (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The order was not changed. I moved the discussion to the Disscussion section only. Didn't you see the section called Discussion, or did you decide to ignore it? Cell Danwydd (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Needs saying
Hi Cell Danwydd, I tried to ignore this kind of behaviour up until now, but do you really think that this edit summary was a good faith way of describing why you removed the tag, and didn't fail this or fall foul of any of these? I felt it lacked an adequate explanation of why you thought that tag was no longer required, and its snide comments about my edits in another article were totally uncalled for.
Please try not to be disrespectful of editors who might not fully share your views about any particular article. We should be working together towards truly NPOV and verifiable content, not apparently trying to smear other editors with the use of false, loaded, snide, or otherwise unacceptable personalised remarks or comments in edit summaries. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Needs replying
I see nothing disrespectful in my description of what you did. I added 5 or citations on the historian Prof Simon Brooks (eg one: you then went to his page and added a Notablility tag. On the following day you added, on the Treachery of the Blue Books article:
'According to the independent academic and author who is known for his political Welsh nationalism...
'I'm not sure about the use of the Brookes book anyway. It is described on the UoWP website as "Written as an act of protest in a Welsh-speaking community in north-west Wales, Why Wales Never Was combines a devastating analysis of the historical failure of Welsh nationalism with an apocalyptic vision of a non-Welsh future".[1] It sounds to be partisan per WP:PARTISAN, and representing an extreme position.
Your citation here is to a commercial book-marketing part of the website! Not done! In order to delete the references in one article, you started to attack the author on his page by adding a notability tag. This, in my book, shows your pov in this matter.
My edit summary described exactly why I removed the notability tag:
'(Delete Notability template placed by User:DeFactor. This follows DeFacto's edit waring on the 'Treachery of the Blue Books' by this user.)'
And this is offensive? Which part?
1st part: edit summary described exactly why I removed the notability tag:
(Delete Notability template placed by User:DeFactor. Nothing 'offensive' there.
2nd part: This follows DeFacto's edit waring on the 'Treachery of the Blue Books' by this user.
I do think that you have been too involved in Welsh-related articles: nearly all your edits try to tone down any criticism of the British Government by academic sources, time after time after time, yet you will always find a technical reason for your edits! And you accuse me of WP:PARTISAN?!
I'll answer your question first: To characterise good faith work on one article, which can include participation in content disputes, as "edit warring" in the edit summary on another article is disrespectful and inflammatory. To suggest that a dispute in one article is a valid reason for removing a tag in another is also disrespectful - surely the reason you removed the tag was something like you'd done a bit more research and found some more information to support the notability of the subject.
Now please answer mine from my original post here:
Do you really think that your edit summary "was a good faith way of describing why you removed the tag, and didn't fail this or fall foul of any of these?"
Also:
Your summary of my changes wrt to the Brooks ref tells us more about your motives, than my actions. When a quote, purported to be from a 'historian' is parachuted directly into an article lead, bypassing the normal conventions of including it along with appropriate context in the article body first, as here, it is natural for anyone watching the progress of the article to be curious. I clicked the link you gave for him, and via the dab page (his name is Brooks not Brookes), found his page as it was then and that he wasn't described as an historian.
That raised a red flag, so I read bit bit further. The article went on to say "Brooks belongs to a family that supports the Labour Party but is himself a Welsh Nationalist", supported by a cite to this webpage article. Supported by that same webpage article, I made this edit, the one you mentioned above, and explained why in the edit summary. I then went on to fix broken links and make various other improvements to the Brooks article, and realising it was still in a poor state flagged it, leaving it like this. Mine were all valid and policy-compliant edits - there was no edit-warring there!
I did also add a cautionary note on the blue books talkpage, yes - it was my duty as a conscientious editor to flag what I thought was, per the description on its publisher's website, potentially a very partisan source. There was no "attack" or biased "pov" involved in any of that - it was all pure due diligence.
Why are you concentrating on criticising the relatively few changes I've made to improve the NPOV in the article and not in praising the other huge improvements that I have made to the quality of it? It might appear that you are more interested in pushing a particular POV rather than providing a good neutral and verifiable article?
Can you give a diff of where I accused you of WP:PARTISAN, I don't recall it.
I'm sure if you take the time to reflect on all that (sorry it's a bit of a wall, but you threw a lot of stones above which needed deflecting!) you will realise that with a bit more respect we can make good progress on the article together. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much of your response here is incorrect. From discussions on other talk pages you can see that you don't answer questions, you wriggle about them, so I'm not discussing anything further with you. I'm not wasting my time here. If you were a positive, caring editor, you would have found the citations on this much respected historian rather than calling him a nationalist and posting the notability tag. I added 10 citations to Simon brook's article this morning before taking your tag off, and what I get is harassment from you! Stop bullying people. Cell Danwydd (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just more unsubstantiated allegations then, rather than grown-up discussion to try to get to the bottom of our differences. Ho-hum. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!17:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
