User talk:Our den said vie wrens

Edit warring on Union Theological College article

Hi @Our den said vie wrens, I would like to discuss edits you have recently made to the article Union Theological College. You have reverted 6 of my edits in the space of 24 hours, which violates the 3 revert rule:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]

For each of my edits that you reverted, there was a description of the edit, explaining why I had made the edit. You haven't explained why you have reverted any of my edits.

For one of the edits, I was simply marking dead links, which should be a useful activity regardless of views about the content of the article.

For most of my edits the description makes reference to discussions on the Talk page for the article. I made suggestions for these changes over a year ago. There have been no objections, exception by users who turned out to be sockpuppets and were banned. You have not engaged in any discussion on the Talk page. Given the substantial time that there has been for people to object to the proposed changes I think it would be most appropriate for you to stop reverting them and discuss on the Talk page why you think they should be reverted. I have created a section for that here: Talk:Union Theological College#Edit warring over previously discussed issues

If you continue to revert my edits without a reasonable explanation and/or continue to violate the 3 revert rule I will report you. I hope that instead we can resolve this and both contribute productively to the article. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not aware of the rule to which you refer. I will have a look at the talk page to which you have now referred me.

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Our den said vie wrens, thanks for engaging with the issues on the Union Theological College Talk page. You raised a few issues there which seemed to be more about me than the article. If I’ve understood you correctly, it may be helpful to read up on Wikipedia’s policy for dealing with concerns about user conduct: ‘If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and directway. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages.’ WP:RUCD. I hope this helps you deal appropriately with issues you may be concerned about while keeping the article Talk page focused on article content. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. You have evidently been editing Wikipedia for far longer than me. However, I thought I was already discussing sources as you seem to have latterly suggested.

Our den said vie wrens (talk) Our den said vie wrens (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Username

Hi @Our den said vie wrens, your username appears to be a phonetic spelling of my username. Given that we both seem to have an interest in Irish Presbyterianism and have made a number of edits to the Union Theological College article, there’s potential for confusion there.

And to be honest reading comments from someone whose username sounds like mine, but was created after mine, and seems to have opposite views to me, is a little unsettling. It’s the kind of thing that can raise suspicion of trolling.

I would like to think that you’re engaging in discussion in good faith and created your username with no awareness of mine, so if you would consider taking steps to clearly disambiguate our accounts, perhaps by making some sort of username change WP:UNC, taking account Wikipedia’s policy on usernames WP:USERNAME, that would be greatly appreciated. I hope you can understand my concern here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)