User talk:Colleabois

Please place any questions or issues here, I will answer as soon as possible.

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Help could be reached at the Teahouse if you need it. Always nice to welcome new users. Welcome! --MgWd (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)MgWd[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Wire of Death is a wonderful first article! I wish everyone could get the hang of article writing so quick! Here's a barnstar for your hard work. ~ Anastasia (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BELGIUM[edit]

By the way, you might like to join WP:BELGIUM ;) All the best, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Dutch[edit]

Hi, I see you've made several attempts to change the Etymology section of the Pennsylvania Dutch page. I do not know why you are so insistent in making these changes but if you want them to stick you will need to provide reliable sources. Currently that paragraph has a single source and that source directly contradicts the changes you are making. Specifically, the source acknowledges several possible reasons for the Pennsylvania Dutch to be so-named despite their undeniably German heritage while your update ignores all but one possible explanation. Also I suggest that you look up the word onomatopoeically, which does not make sense in the context in which you are trying to use it. It sounds like you are saying the Pennsylvania Dutch language sounds like "dutch dutch dutch" (in much the way the Greeks called their invaders "barbarians" because their language sounded like "bar bar bar" which is an example of an onomatopoeically influenced exonym). In any event, the current text in that section is the result of open dialog among a number of editors and I would like to invite you to participate in that dialog. Thanks, Dusty|💬|You can help! 20:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF is not optional[edit]

I'm copying this from your wholly inappropriate response from RFP/C:

"Colleabois, we do try to action RFP/C within a few days - they are not considered urgent requests. The fact that over those days you actually brought yourself up to autoconfirmed status is a testament to you, and your desire to help the project. We are all volunteers - although I personally monitor RFP/C, I a) didn't see your request, and b) probably would have used {{subst:RFCP|nd95}} and called it not done. Granting confirmed, as you will have already ready, is extremely rare." (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you volunteer to do a certain task, I believe that task itself is no longer voluntary. That said, this remark is unnecessary and uncalled for as I never assumed bad faith, I merely am of the opinion that the 'already done' comment was inappropriate as nothing had been done. I would have perfectly accepted and respected a comment saying that it skipped attention or that the request would have been denied. Colleabois (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever you do, please no longer update the request of RFP/C - it's not a place for discussion. "Already done" means by definition that "the editor is already autoconfirmed" - perhaps you thought it meant something else? We have a series of common templates for use that have been developed to avoid confusion. Perhaps you're suggesting that we call it something else - that's a discussion that I can either help with, or belongs on the RFP/C talkpage instead - not in your request. I'll be watching here for replies (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to respond to the complaint, you may do so at WP:AN3#User:Colleabois reported by User:Mathsci (Result: ). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colleabois. I have responded to the report and decided not to block you because you did not violate 3RR. However, your behaviour still constituted edit warring, and your repeatedly adding multiple tags to articles is getting disruptive. If you think the tags should be there, or if you have comments about the sources, please discuss it on the talk page. While you are doing that, please avoid editing the article until you have reached a consensus. If you continue to edit war, even without reaching 3RR, you may be blocked. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a new user, I simply have only recently registered.
I have not breached the 3RR, this required four reverts within 24 hours; there are only three. What I have done is restore the tags I added to statements which were either unsupported or invalidly 'supported' by sourced which are either inadequate, obsolete or invalid. This user has reverted all of these tags (all of whom I should mention, had a rationale written behind them in hidden script to explain their placement) without any proper rationale. Per WP:SOURCE I have every right to delete unsourced material and claims; I added the tags to address these issues, giving editors the opportunity to correct/expand/validate them while warning readers of the article.
Since I've only added tags (though including the removal of one or two sentences which I found beyond belief) I haven't added my 'point of view' to any content in the article, only to the talk page. In that light, I really can't comprehend which POV I'm supposedly pushing.
On the talk page, I have stated (after, in an aggressive tone, the above user accused me of breaching the 3RR) that I had not and never would. I have said clearly to him, that those tags have every right to be there and that, while I would not revert his counterproductive edit a third time, I would simply remove the disputed information; again per WP:SOURCE. This was not a threat of blanking the page, nor would it result in that. The article in question simply has a number of claims which are currently unsupported; this would result in a number of sentences being removed. Not whole sections, let alone large parts of the article. This would of course be unnecessary, as I am not so much interested in removing information as I am in seeing it correctly sourced.
The points I raise are valid, as a number of fellow editors have confirmed on the talk page.

All in all I find this all very aggressive, non-constructive and in fact counterproductive to the improvement of the article. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

Since you claim to be an experienced editor, this advice might not be necessary. But if you do intend to remove content from the Germans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page I would recommend putting the information you intend to remove from the article onto the talk page first with why you think it should be removed. From glancing at what you tagged, I generally agree with your actions and I don't want to see you get sanctioned by an accusation of being Pointy. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I shall do that. Colleabois (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advise[edit]

Some advice you may like to consider. FtA was given similar advice [1] but chose not to take it, and everything predicted in that message has happened. Anyway, I suggest that you consider simply dropping your current user name, adopting a new one with no references to external identities and continue editing as before under the new name. You should not make any kind of link between them on-wiki, but equally it would be imperative that you privately communicate the link to AC and assure them that you intend to respect any restrictions applicable to your current name while they are in force. Assure AC that you reject the imputations of disruptive editing in the past and give them your assurance that you will be sure not to do anything of the kind in the future. Make it clear that you would regard continued oppositional research and linking your old and new usernames on the pretext of finding or holding evidence on-wiki as harassment. Good luck. Conformal coot (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should thank you for the advise, but I have not done anything wrong here. User:Mathsci is very aggressive in his tone and quick to slander, in this case me, with POV-pushing or edit warring, but at the end of the day he has very little to stand on in his opposition to me. The content in tagged in the Germans-article will either be removed or proper sources will be provided for the contested claims; in either case that will satisfy me. I've noticed he's followed my edits and has made attempt to revert some of them based on what can only be called WP:POINT; if this stalking behavior continues or escalates I will report him. I have faith that Wikipedia admins will deal with it accordingly despite his earlier slandering of my name. But thank you for your concern. Colleabois (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]