User talk:Real History Man

May 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oshwah, I find the talk system here a little hard to work out, I think it should be more like a regular email. However, I followed your advice, stated sources, made corrections and several new footnotes and my edits were all removed again for not stating sources...this was on the "1982 Invasion of the Falklands" page (you probably have to deal with a lot) to be honest I'm confused and don't want to just do the same again and waste your time...there's obviously something I'm not doing. Please could you help me to understand what that is? An example on this page would be where I made the edit to support BOTH official casualty reports - the current age has only the Argentine report which differs greatly from the British report - I stated my source as such, with the official title, name of the man who gave the report and the date...it was removed. Certainly this page is riddled with errors which I would like to help to correct, and it seems I'm not doing it correctly...can you help me please? Real History Man (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real History Man, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Real History Man! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Per WP:TPG you should not modify talk page discussions, in particular removing talk page discussions is considered disruptive. I will seek admin intervention if I see a repeat of this behaviour. W C M_email 11:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Real History Man. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 23:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I thought it best to familiarize you with Wikipedia's policy on edit warring i.e. repeatedly editing to insert contested text into an article. I would suggest you read the links provided. If you continue to do so you could be blocked from editing. Further, many people presume this gives them three bites of the cherry but it doesn't. If an admin sees a pattern over time, they will also block you even in you never have 4 reverts in 24 hrs. 07:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Hohum" there was most certainly not any 'attack' but someone (WCM) who would much rather declare himself right than realise that he is entirely wrong and lose face. I'm an older man, I don't have a line of code for that, I'm sorry, what I do have is knowledge and THAT is the ethos of Wikipedia or any such resource is knowledge, not the stifling of it. WCM is embarrassed and trying to save face over an issue which, if he knows nothing about is (as I assure you he doesn't) he should simply leave alone. Knowing his identity, however, I can assure you also that HE is the one who is actually bullying and insulting - and we can add defamation to the charge-sheet - for a VERY personal reason which is out of the bounds of what we all are - or should be - here to do. His attacks are personal against an esteemed member of the military history community based upon persona vanity. It s quite one thing to be batter at history and another to be better at Wiki. I am the former, he the latter. Rather than quoting some rule to you in a line of code, I prefer a conversation, which is what we used to do before people became faceless: look at what I have added to the talk pages and what he has. I'm trying to help people here. He isn't. He is trying to 'be right' which he isn't, by the way. He might well be a part of your 'set' and a younger person who (on Wiki at least) can run a few rings around an old sod, but ultimately that does not equate to knowledge, which he lacks in buckets. One wonders why he is even here. I come back to you...would you rather understand the truth about this, or would you rather 'be right on Wiki'? Which are you here? Real History Man (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer is in WP:TRUTH. To be included on wikipedia, information needs to be verifiable (as defined by the wikipedia rules). These links are not to "code" but to easily understood requirements. (Hohum ^@) 19:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hohum - I hate to tell you but I'd guess that well over 50% of this article is not true. I'm currently reading how a man (Fleet) 800 miles away on South Georgia managed to shoot Pedro Giachino, Harry Dorey will also wonder how he managed to shoot through three walls from HQ/Ops and hit someone in the garden, Diego Quiroga will doubtless be very happy to learn that he was only shot in the arm (although he might now question why he has half his liver missing along with a couple of ribs), Ernesto Urbina will be enthralled to learn that the three bullets they pulled from his stomach came from a 'grenade' and poor old Giachino himself was shot in a garden...kick in many doors in the middle of a chicken run outside someone's kitchen often? That's all in one small section. He actually kicked in a door, found himself in a dead end, exited and came around the corner. He was shot by four Royal Marines; Mick Sellen (you got one out of the four), Andy Macdonald, Colin 'Tiny' Jones and Murray Paterson. Now if we go by other published sources, I will also name Major Gary Noott, Cpl. Geordie Gill and Marine Andy Timms all of whom have also been stated in various publications to have shot him. Let's put everyone! Oh and now it states that "All sources agree on Argentine casualties as 1 killed and 3 wounded" - they certainly don't. The Argentine story was that. Major Mike Norman's report stated 5 killed, 17 wounded, 3 prisoners and 1 Amtrac destroyed (which it was indeed). So we actually have a page which is completely undermining the purposes of Wikipedia. Hardy anything here on this page is true. Has anyone seen the official Argentine report? Can anyone prove who shot Giachino and Quiroga? Where are these sources stated? You will find that they are not on the main page, therefore they are as true or as false as one wants to believe. Why don't you people stop trying to fight me like I'm some twelve year old and accept that the page is terribly wrong and that I am trying to actually help the history. It is evident that things are known to me and others which are not known to you, however that one person is actually warring here and holding onto this as if he inherited it. There wouldn't be an 'Edit War' (sorry there's probably some clever brackets for that somewhere to make it look official) if that someone helped rather than hindered, and the reason is that he is too proud to admit he might ever possibly be wrong. Just reading back through my comments, you can tell I might be a bit better informed than most. So why not let me help? Real History Man (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For someone claiming to be a military historian you certainly have a lot of trouble understanding the concept of rules of engagement. E Eng 18:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give up trying to help now. Too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and clearly either won't read or abide by wikipedia rules. (Hohum ^@) 22:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. W C M_email 07:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, it comes from a 'Wikitroll' named 'Wee Curry Monster' who doesn't know half (or quarter, and that's being kind) as much as he tells people he does and, although his stance is of the 'caring and neutral' variety, he is in fact associated with a known internet troll and is becoming not only VERY personal but VERY out of his depth. Real History Man (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --Darius (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster has been here for 10 years and has almost 21,000 edits. They are not a troll. You, however, appear to be here only to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to WP:PROMOTE the book you admit to owning the rights to. You are also WP:edit warring. If you do not stop, you will be reported to WP:EWN, the noticeboard which deals with edit warring, where you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. If you disagree with what's in the article, and other editors disagree with your "corrections", your next step is to open a calm, rational, polite discussion on the article's talk page, not to continue to attempt to make changes that other editors find unacceptable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not admit to owning the rights to it at all, I'm not the author. Real History Man (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]