User talk:80.5.1.159

June 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vexin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please don't simply undo my revert without discussing at the article's talkpage: Talk:Vexin#Anonymous_edits_from_80.5.1.159. Eric ^talk 14:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2018

Hello, I'm Dreamy Jazz. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Madog II ap Gruffydd, Lord of Dinas Bran, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the work you're doing on Welsh articles. Unfortunately, a lot of the material has no sources. If you can add some inline citations, please do, but if not the material will have to be removed. Let me know if you have any questions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Early January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cilgerran, 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. Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Swanscombe, 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. Charles (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to River Cleddau have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

"In use" tag

@80.5.1.159: - It's a good idea to put {{in use}} at the top of any page you are editing extensively. That allows you some time to make your edits without edit conflicts with other editors. I see you are making many useful edits on Welsh history, but in some haste, resulting in some mistakes; other editors may pick these up, but it's better practice to deal with them yourself. These include not putting punctuation before references, linking and reference formatting. These may seem pedantic, but style is important as well as content. Have a look at WP:MOS, and let me know if I can help in any way. Cheers, Tony. Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edits on Welsh history

Please -

• Stop adding information without a reliable source
• Stop placing references before punctuation
• Stop adding information not directly related to the subject - Wikipedia is not a history textbook, novel or soap-opera; tone and balance are important

Please -

• Check to see whether your references are available online as a courtesy to users of Wikipedia
• Leave an edit summary every time you make an edit, not just when you disagree with another editor
• Use the preview button to check your edit for grammar, punctuation and spelling before publishing changes

You risk having useful edits removed if you can't follow Wikipedia styles, guidelines and policies

• Ask for help if you need it.

Tony Holkham (Talk) 21:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Tony Holkham. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hundred of Roose, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Removing all your edits on this article is the only way to get your attention, even though there was some useful information and interesting historical information included. However, your complex and impulsive edits on this and many other Welsh articles are only partly relevant to the subjects, far too detailed (this is not a history textbook), only partly sourced and poorly formatted and linked, and you should consider taking more care before making such extensive edits without discussion on the article's talk page. Your dedication to the subject of Welsh history is impressive, but you are going about it in a way that is borderline disruptive, because other editors have to tidy up after you. Please consider this friendly advice before continuing with these comprehensive edits. Thanks. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC) ... and Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, I'm Tony Holkham. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Owain Glyndŵr, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Reginald Grey, 3rd Baron Grey de Ruthyn, 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. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Laugharne, you may be blocked from editing. Much of the information you are adding is not directly relevant to Laugharne (which you spelt wrong). Punctuation goes before refs. You are not using edit summaries. You are ignoring previous attempts to curb your over-enthusiastic editing, and offers of help. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

80.5.1.159 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It says disruptive edits. The only claim of disruption comes from Toney Hokem. I point out below, with evidence, that his claim of disruption is completely unjustified - that my edits are constructive and useful and it is his opposition to them that are therefore disruptive. I don't see how my statements below, and the linked evidence, could have been read fully within the few seconds between me posting it and the below response.

It says at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System that Administrators reviewing an appeal should take the time to consider all elements of the appeal. Well the below administrator apparently took less than 1 minute to read several points : [1], which I don't believe is just.

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

80.5.1.159 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The claim of disruption is by an user (Tony Hokem) who seems to think he owns articles on Wales, and views any substantial edit not made by him or his mates as disruptive.

In his own words, I makes large, impulsive and detailed changes to articles on Welsh places.

His claim that they are impulsive makes clear his issue - that they haven't been planned in a way that involves him.

Those changes are, by the way, all referenced. For example, he claims the following edit is disruptive : [2]

The article before my edit claims that (and without references):

• Laugharne was known originally as Abercorren
• That it originally belonged to the princes of Wales
• That it was acquired by the de-Bryan family by a marriage to a daughter of Lord Rhys
• It claims that Henry II first made peace with Lord Rhys in 1172
• That it took the name of Laugharne from an Owen Laugharne who married a daughter of de-Bryan
• That the first de-Bryan of Laugharne was Lord High Admiral
• It randomly mentions Flemings without connecting them to Laugharne (although this is referenced to a book that has Laugharne in the name).
• Abruptly mentions John Perrot as if he's just some random bloke who suddenly had the castle for no reason.

The article after my edit makes clear (with references):

• That although the area of Laugharne belonged to the princes of Deheubarth (note:as opposed to the whole of Wales), the castle was first built by the Normans (a further edit by me makes clear that there are no earlier references to the castle - and provides a reference for that statement : [3]).
• The significance of the date 1116 (the construction date for Laugharne castle); it wasn't just a year picked at random by the Normans.
• A precis of how the normans came by the area (so that its not just "one day a Norman turned up in this welsh place out of the blue and built a castle and it wasn't welsh any more").
• That a descendant of a former King of Dyfed (as opposed to Deheubarth) was though appointed as castellan of Laugharne (as opposed to being its owner).
• That Robert Courtmaine (Laughern Castle's builder) may be one of the local magnates mentioned in a Papal bull; he is otherwise unknown.
• That Lord Rhys made peace with Henry II in 1156 (rather than 1172), and that 1172 was merely when Henry made Rhys Justiciar of South Wales.
• What had changed between 1172 and 1156

After a further edit of mine [4], it also makes clear (with references):

• That the previously unreferenced claim about Owen Laugharne comes from a pre-20th century source (rather than being the random jotting of a wikipedia user).
• That the claim about Owen Laugharne itself is in fact bollocks.
• That the de-Bryan who was a Lord High Admiral was a descendant of the first de-Bryan not the man himself (the usual numbering has the Lord High Admiral as Guy de Bryan VII, while the first de-Bryan of Laugharne was Guy de Bryan IV); the article before my edit was more than 1 century out.
• That John Perrot isn't just some random bloke, but Queen Elizabeth's half-brother (or so many historical sources claimed).

How this counts as "disruptive" is beyond me.

And a month is an entirely unjustly long amount of time for a block in any case.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

80.5.1.159 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It says disruptive edits. The only claim of disruption comes from Tony Halkem. I point out above, with evidence, that his claim of disruption is completely unjustified - that my edits are constructive and useful and it is his opposition to them that are therefore disruptive. I don't see how my statements below, and the linked evidence, could have been read fully within the few seconds between me posting it and the below response.

It says at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System that Administrators reviewing an appeal should take the time to consider all elements of the appeal. Well the above administrator apparently took less than 1 minute to read the above and decide : [5], which I don't believe is just, or realistic - its as if its a knee-jerk response rather than actually considering the appeal as Wikipedia says Administrators are supposed to.

Decline reason:

I might have blocked for this uncivil comment by itself. Examining your edits, as you requested(though I too would have declined the WP:TLDR request above which didn't address the block) you seem to have a battleground mentality and not the collaborative and civil attitude needed to work on this collective project. To be unblocked, you will need to demonstrate that you are able and willing to work collaboratively with other editors and explain the proper means of working through editing disputes. As this request does not do that, I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

331dot beat me to declining this unblock request, so I'll post my response here instead. If you look at the report that was filed regarding your problematic edits here, you'll see that it's more than just the specific revisions that you mentioned in your previous unblock request that contributed to the reason that you were blocked. You've been left numerous messages here with notes, warnings, and attempts to explain different issues and problems that have been occurring and ongoing with many of your edits to articles. Not only were these warnings ignored and not given any kind of response from you, but the issues appear to have continued. Once someone was willing to step in, escalate things to you, and bring things to your attention, you responded with incivility and out-right unfounded and unnecessary accusations in return. Your unblock request needs to address all of these problems - it needs to list all of the exact issues that you were blocked for, indicate an understanding of this and how these issues were problematic, and include an explanation and a plan of action as to how you'll improve your edits and how these issues will not continue any further. This is what will be expected from you in an unblock request before it would be given any kind of consideration. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

About the Annun Ddu/Anwn Ddu edit you made

Hello there, can you explain the edit you made in the List of Rulers in Wales Wikipedia article? There's a video talking about the Welsh King that doesn't exist because there's no source. What's your response to that video? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0mlGDZ1ZDFI&t=29s 120.28.196.32 (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Also covered in more detail in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TjtgsKpipU, starting at the 33:55 minute mark. Renerpho (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

---