User talk:Dubarr18

Kanye Quest 3030, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dubarr18,

Sorry for hitting the revert button straight away. It's been hectic, probably at your side of the world too. It's no excuse. Sorry for that. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ronan Moore, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 18:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely unsure as to the reason for this nor what you are asking for. Everything stated on the page is ciatated on the page and plenty of ciatations have been given from reliable news sources. It has already been published and has been put in multiple categories, I do not see any reason for this to be put into draft space and am going to have to ask you to be more specific on what you actually expect from the article as it has already met the standards you set out here. Dubarr18 (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you with this, but I have had to mention you in this ANI discussion which relates to your recent merger proposal. Please join the discussion if you wish to do so. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Apologies inky saw this now. May I ask which discussion you mentioned me? When I click the link I just get a big long list of discussions and I don't know which one you refer to. Dubarr18 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dubarr18: Hello! Please stop altering information in articles such as Atheism and Placebo without reliable sources. Your edits altered information that was contradictory to reliable sources given in the body. Discussing things on the talk page is also important (WP:BRD). Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: I am unsure what exactly you mean here since both of my edits followed Wikipedia guidelines and each were provided with a reliable source. In both cases I was either maintaining neutrality of an article or clarifying that there is disagreement over what a term means. Where exactly are you claiming that I contradicted a reliable source?

@Dubarr18: "my edits followed Wikipedia guidelines and each were provided with a reliable source" both of your edits (here and here) were added without any sources, and they didn't follow guidelines. You added a statement to atheism which is unnecessary for the lead section and unreferenced. You removed "sham" from the lead section of placebo, which its sources clearly state as "sham"; nothing about neutrality. Wikipedia summarizes info given by reliable sources. Wretchskull (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wretchskull: 'were added without any sources, and they didn't follow guidelines. You added a statement to atheism which is unnecessary for the lead section and unreferenced' This is blatantly false, my edit for the Atheism article quite literally had a source attached directly to it. Unless you are attempting to claim Encyclopedia Britannica is an unreliable source then you are incorrect, one was provided on the page meaning there was no reason for its removal as it followed guidelines and was properly sourced with a reliable source.

Well even if it was referenced, it is definitely not appropriate for the lead section. The lead should shortly summarize the key points of a topic without any ambiguity, as that is reserved for the body of the article where these ambiguities can be clarified. Wretchskull (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've added this exact text to many articles:

Unfortunately Lloyd's business practices did not allow authors to put their name on their published work, due to this there is disagreement over the authorship of many works published by his company.

There are many problems with the edits where you have done this.

• You've put it in sections entitled "Authorship Question". You should not capitalise section headings in that way: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Section_headings.
• You should not editorialise with words like "unfortunately": see MOS:EDITORIAL.
• The text contains a run-on sentence.
• In a lot of the article where you've added this text, you follow it up with text that contains numerous other grammatical errors.

Are you planning to correct these errors? MagicAllium (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you understood what I wrote above? MagicAllium (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicAllium if there is an issue with the grammar of a section I have written feel free to fix it. There is no need for me to fix it myself, as I personally see no such grammar issues, and also no need to blanket remove entire sections for such errors. This is why your work on the section on the Varney page has not been reverted, it improves rather than removes the section. Doing so is considered disruptive editing and as the three separate warnings given on your talk page indicate may risk you getting blocked from editing Wikipedia. It appears that you are dedicated to helping improve the site but removing entire sections or arbitrarily removing properly cited material is not the way to go about this goal. Regards, Dubarr18 (talk)

If you can't see the grammar and tone errors that you have made, that is a serious problem. Your aggressive restoration of substandard material, false claims and spamming of talk pages are also problems. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion, and I do not think you know what the word "arbitrary" means. You are certainly not using it accurately. MagicAllium (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MagicAllium I have throughout our interactions followed the wikipedia guidelines on disruptive editing, if this has been perceived as 'aggressive' or 'spam' then I apologise but that is the guidelines of the site that must be followed. Removing large sections of the site for 'grammar' or properly sourced material for 'lameness' are both considered disruptive editing. As well as that repeatedly removing the warnings put on your talk page and resorting to ad hominem is also considered poor form.

As mentioned it is the blanket removal of sections that is making these pages be reverted. You can always add them back and simply fix the grammatical errors that you perceive to be present. As well as that there is no reason to remove the content you are, they do not fall under any of the four reasons to not list content you gave on the Navan page and 'Lameness' is not a sufficient reason. As well as that a talk on the Varney page found that some of the content you were removing was in fact some of the strongest in that section. You can help contribute by fixing these grammatical mistakes instead of removing entire sections, by helping cite material and keeping proper material on the page. Doing otherwise is considered disruptive editing and may result in your account being blocked from editing wikipedia. Regards, Dubarr18 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering whether to reply to the message you left for me on the talk page of the IP editor. I was in two minds because really it's none of your business what I say to another user, unless it's about you, or breaks WP's rules or policies. I think on balance it's probably best that I do reply, so we're both on the same page. You wrote: Where exactly was any sort of insult made against another user @Bastun: that justifies a full warning like this? Checking the pages history there appears to be no such insult justifying yet another warning against the user. You yourself have said significantly worse to other users throughout your time on the site. Is there any reason why you are being so harsh towards a brand new user to the site?

First, the warning was a only a Twinkle 'level 2', and included an additional comment from me, which indicated that the personal attack was in an edit summary made by the IP, namely {[tpq|Disproven troll nonsense}}. Calling someone a troll is a personal attack and warrants such a warning, imo. Their subsequent attacks on me here, (deleted, then restored) and an admin would probably suggest a warning was indeed justified. Secondly, an anon IP is not necessarily a new editor just because they're not using a registered account. Certainly, in my experience, not many new users bother themselves with properly formatted citation templates and updates to infoboxes (which might indeed suggest I should not be templating the regulars.)

If I have said "significantly worse" to other editors - while commenting on contributors rather than content - please outline where. (Yes, I'm aware I have used strong language with you, directly, on the Shannon article talk page, but that was not a personal attack directed at you, it was an expression of frustration that you would not read the reference you objected to. Do you really want to re-hash that issue again?)

Now, I do have to ask, how did you find yourself on that user's page? Us running into each other on notable Irish articles, fair enough. But appearing at a much more obscure article, where I had just reverted someone, to revert my edit as your first edit to it? Then taking an interest in an IP editor's edits to a not-really-mainstream-in-Ireland TV show? I am going to WP:AGF and put it down to coincidence - I know you previously contributed to the AfD on the Burke family, so it was probably on your watchlist - but I sincerely hope that's all it was. Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is exactly this aggressive and combative tone that you have taken here which is exactly what was being referred to by myself. Looking through your contribs this seems part of a history where by you occasionally insult other users, often swearing at them, sometimes escalate conflicts with other editors were there is no need to do so, and react negatively when it is suggested that one of your own contribs was not prodcutive.

To put it bluntly it is not up to you to decide what is and is not directly insulting another user, swearing at a user for whatever reasson is a personal attack and you should know this. You swearing at me on the Shannon article was taken by myself as a personal attack which was ignored as being bait. It is not up to you to decide for myself, or anyone else, what is and is not a personal attack. You yourself have already referenced the time you swore at me while having a talk page discussion not go your way on the shannon article. A quick glance through your contribs reveals another instance of you swearing at yet another user both in the edit summaries and on their talk page and then later on that same page getting baited and insulting them more. Having someone call another individual a 'dork' or 'troll' is significantly less severe than outright swearing at someone. I would imagine you yourself would not take it well if another user swore at you in a similar manner, especially since you consider being called a troll justifying a level 2 warning. I would think, like the vast majority of people, you would perceive someone calling your contributions 'bullshit' as justifying a stronger response than someone calling another a 'troll'.

As well as this it seems a general trend to also become quite aggresive with new users, the user above being an example of one among many who you kept edit warring with even though they were correctly following procedure and convention on the site. Again a breif look through your contribs shows this as a recurring trend, for one example when an IP address caused a minor error in an infobox and updated a caption in a manner which you disliked you responded with a level 3 warning. This seems to needlessly escalate a very simply error to make for a new user. Again, how would you respond if someone gave you a warning for minor errors you make throughout the site? Even your final paragraph here continues to follow this trend of trying to escalate conflict as you quite clearly insinuate bad faith from myself questioning but a single decision of yours. Dubarr18 (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have to justify myself in any way to you, but the edit summary which accompanied the blanking of a full paragraph of relevant, sourced content from the Phil Hogan article was "Orphaned reference. Bot validation error." So yes, it was clearly a bullshit removal that the editor attempted to disguise - not a good-faith contribution! Level 3 warning fully justified. Similarly, I've been here a while now, and am well aware that new, good-faith editors don't generally mess around with infoboxes, but vandals absolutely do. Using an edit summary of "Fixed typo" while removing a title and a parameter? Obvious vandalism. Don't know how you'd be able to defend that as a "very simple error for a new user", in all honesty. As to what is and what isn't a personal attack, have a read of WP:NPA. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you're a member of WP:Folklore, would you be interested in joining a wikiproject on oral tradition (which folklore is a subset of)? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]