User talk:Ewen Douglas

Ewen Douglas, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ewen Douglas! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ewen Douglas! You created a thread called Where can I be more useful? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.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) 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Australia into European exploration of Australia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note, Diannaa 🍁 (talk)! I did not know that. I'll head over there now and leave attribution code, if someone else hasn't already. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you already took care of it for that page, thank you for that. No, this was the first time I'd copied content from one article to another. Thanks again for making me aware of the policy. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner (TV series)

I've set this article to accept only revisions from auto-confirmed editors. Clearly there's an ongoing edit war against an editor who is ip hopping. I trust this helps. -- Longhair\^talk 08:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems like a good solution. Ewen Douglas (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Committee to Defend the President

Ewen, a lot of the edits that you made are either inaccurate, misleading, or unrelated to the page at hand. Case in point: Ted Harvey has been published in the Daily Caller, but also a bunch of other news outlets worth mentioning, so to pretend otherwise makes no sense. I also added a bunch of other news sources relevant to the page, so deleting them now is counterproductive. What specifically can I do differently in the next round of edits to have them be accepted?

Please and thank you! Doctorstrange617 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doctorstrange617 (talk). I would say to take it one edit at a time. The easiest one to do first is to add a reference (or two or three) to other opinion pieces that Ted Harvey has had published, and then change that sentence to reflect that he's been published in various different places. After that, if you feel more things should be added, I would go about it by doing one thing at a time - a specific change to the text, along with a reference, then move on to the next change you want to make. Should make things flow more easily from here on out.

Thanks for discussing! I would also suggest that the next note you make goes on the article's talk page, rather than here. It's the more appropriate place for it. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm Tsumikiria. Your recent edit to the page Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez appears to have added incorrect information, so it has been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsumikiria, thank you for calling attention to the next sentence, which I missed. It turns out that source ALSO does not state that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez supports abolishing ICE. So, in other words, two sentences in a row have misconstrued Ocasio-Cortez's statements on ICE, in the very sources which they purport to get the info from! I'll fix both sentences. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true and the three sources around the two sentences doesn't seem to explicitly mention she saying that she does not support abolishing ICE. In fact her support for abolishing ICE is right on her website: [1]. You shouldn't made this revert either. Present your case to the talk page, and do not make wild edits without consensus. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tsumikiria, please check this article, which is used as the source for that sentence (I didn't add that source, it was already there). Here's the direct quote from the article: "Ocasio-Cortez spoke to Documented about her support of the movement to dissolve Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as #AbolishICE shortly before she won. She said that she would stop short of fully disbanding the agency, and would rather create a pathway to citizenship for more immigrants through decriminalization. “It’s not an open-borders position. I think it’s part of a larger conversation that we need to sit down with immigration activists,” Ocasio-Cortez said."

I don't know how it could be more explicit than that. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Simpsons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springfield (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) 09:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ewen Douglas! You created a thread called Did Google Books change something? 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, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Paleoconservatism, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 06:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it could be better described as "disruptive editing", especially considering the purpose of that account's limited edits. Thank you for the note, Bettering the Wiki (talk). Ewen Douglas (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Premier League. Thank you.~~ Nzd (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Nzd (talk), but that IP wrote the following:

"He is currently and more notably known as a waste of space who refuses to spend any of his own money, nor invest in anything other than his vineyards and ranches in the United States. Fans of Arsenal see Stan as a total liability and an irresponsible club owner."

Also, another edit I undid was his reversion of a different editor undoing vandalism on that article. I assume good faith, but I also take a few seconds to research whether that good faith is warranted or not. In this case, if you look, his edits are clearly not made in good faith. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the other contribs, so I can see why you removed it. However, if you go back further, you'll see that this is a long-standing piece of text that has only recently been the subject of disruptive editing. I've moved it into the body, where hopefully it'll be less contentious. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the right decision. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jutland page

Hi. You are being pretty annoying and disruptive at the Jutland page at the moment. And for no good reason. Please stop, and spend your time on something else. RhinoMind (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RhinoMind (talk), you'll have to be more specific. I've removed unsourced info. That's not disruptive. And calling me "annoying" certainly sounds like a personal attack. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping. That is my complaint. I have given explanations in the editorial reverts on the page. Please read them again. It is your behaviour I criticize, not your person.

Most of the "unsourced info" you removed, is well-sourced on the many Wikipedia articles that was linked in the text. You just don't recognise them.

I can see that you are new on Wikipedia. I wonder what you think you are contributing with? Because I can't see it. (and that is a question, not a personal attack)

I would like to ask what your background is in relation to the Jutland subject? Do you have any knowledge of the subject or do you see your engagement as purely copy-editing? No offence, but I think it would be helpful to know. RhinoMind (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions smack of WP:OWN issues. One does not need a background in Jutland affairs in order to be qualified to edit the page, and it's quite offensive to suggest otherwise. Ewen Douglas (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you relevant questions. RhinoMind (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To what end, exactly? Ewen Douglas (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

You just violated 1RR with these two reverts [2] [3] and you apparently don't understand the consensus process—WP:ONUS is to discuss challenged material before it goes into the article, not justify it after the fact. Kindly self revert. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you don't understand that you need consensus for your changes, and you clearly don't have it - not only does no one agree with your removal, but at least two other editors agree with me that the information belongs in the lede. So, your waiting just outside the 24-hour window to game the 1RR system notwithstanding, I think it's obvious you're the one in danger here. I've held off on reporting your behavior so far, in the interest of fostering a good editing environment. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have evidence that "no one agrees with me?" Or can you point to talk-page consensus for the paragraph? You should also look at a calendar, because my last edit to the page was on 1/22. Today is 1/25. You, on the other hand, made two reverts (coincidentally, both of which were to my contributions) within 24 hours, which is a rule violation. Instead of making threats about "danger" or filing a frivolous report, you should amend your mistake and self-revert. That's all I have to say on the matter—your call. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The burden for finding consensus for your changes is on you, not me. The fact that you've repeatedly tried to remove sourced information, unilaterally, without consensus, is evidence of your disruptive editing. Even since my reversion of your disruptive edit, another editor has already agreed that you were in the wrong. And you still haven't attempted to discuss your changes on the talk page, choosing instead to make threats here. Any report made on this behavior would be far from frivolous. Ewen Douglas (talk)

Wrong—The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. per WP:ONUS. Do you have a legitimate reason why we need to characterize her policy positions, which, according to WP:RS, have been somewhat controversial, as having "wide support" in the lead? Believing yourself to be in the right isn't an excuse to violate WP:1RR, something that's universally respected even among editors who vehemently disagree, so if you're really interested in fostering a good editing environment, self-reverting and discussing would be a good place to start. As I said, that's your call, and I don't have anything more to add. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph was in place, and agreed upon by multiple editors, and then you decided you didn't like it. Per WP:CYCLE, once you were reverted, you should have discussed your removal. You didn't do that. You chose to unilaterally remove the sourced material again. That's a blatant violation of the BRD policy, as I read it. Perhaps your interpretation of that policy differs. Ewen Douglas (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]