User talk:HistoricalJoesph.M

Sources misrepresentation

I left a comment on the article's talk page about the concerns I have regarding your misrepresentation of the sources. I pinged you, but since you have failed to acknowledge it, I'm leaving a reminder here (just in case you missed the ping). M.Bitton (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just spotted it and responded. All the best, Joe. HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barbary pirates. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks again for your concern. I am responding in the Talk Page & I would like my point to be fully and accurately considered in good faith. I am not engaging in a edit war, I simply require the third resource and edit to be looked at in good faith. It's a brilliant book from a great historical writer - it's worth a read and also inclusion! HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Barbary pirates shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skitash, thanks for your concern. My Last message on the importance of adhering to "Assume Good Faith" has been ignored on both this talk page, the Barbary Pirates talk page and the page itself. I am not engaging in an edit war, I'm asking for this adherence of wiki policy to be fully responded to. The third resource I edited with, alongside it's contents, has been completely overlooked despite its accuracy and relevance, therefore has not become a disputed resolution. As per my last comment which has been an unresolved conversation on the Talk Page of the article, despite the resource I supplied adhering to a Neutral point of view:

@HistoricalJoesph.M: this content that you added doesn't exist on page 18, therefore, a valid explanation for why you added it is in order. M.Bitton (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source that you added previously, and likewise, it doesn't support the other content that you added.

Since I wasted my time checking the sources, only to find out that that you grossly misrepresented them, further edits of yours will simply be reverted until you provide a valid explanation for what you did. M.Bitton (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thanks for your message. The sources I previously sent were confused with several of the wordings and pages as the online tool I used to explore the books was no apt with their downloads, apologies on my behalf. You'll find the latest revision I done is using a very credible online resource, with direct links to the quote, pages and a whole downloadable version on the book. It's a great read! Thanks again. HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to explain why you misrepresented the two sources (we're not just talking about a simple mistake, you literally attributed quotes to two different sources, here and here). Try again and give the correct pages that are supposed to support your claims (I have access to the two sources). Also, I strongly suggest you refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I specifically replied to you stating "The sources I previously sent were confused with several of the wordings and pages as the online tool I used to explore the books was no apt with their downloads, apologies on my behalf". That is me explaining exactly why the prior two sources were misrepresented with exact wordings and pages. As a result I supplied you with a very accurate third resource, through a trusted online website that displays the book of the historian exactly as it is and directs you exactly to the page where the quote is used. Also, I strongly suggest you assume good faith. The prior two resources were declined, which is fine. But the third being declined on the basis of two edits being declined prior is not to assume good faith or to accurately include the relevant third resource on this basis -

Historical writer Angus Konstam notes that "for almost 300 years North African and Turkish corsairs dominated the Western and Central Mediterranean from their havens along the coasts of modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya — the Berber or ‘Barbary’ Coast". Stating that "these skilled and ferocious seamen earned such a reputation that they attracted European renegades to join them, and raided as far north as the coasts of England, Ireland, and even Iceland." HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

...

You can find the exact resource and information I'm referring to (Konstam, Angus. The Barbary Pirates 15th-17th Centuries. p.66) in both the talk page of the Barbary Pirates article & the revision history where it has been continually edited out. Thanks again for you concern here, let's "Assume Good Faith" and "Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors" as per the Wiki guidelines. Kind Regards. HistoricalJoesph.M (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]