User talk:Athousandcuts2005

Welcome!

Hi Athousandcuts2005! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Hi, I know I should WP:Assume good faith but you look like corporate bot. If I'm wrong then I'm sorry and I hope I haven't made you feel unwelcome and that you enjoy contributing to wikipedia. If you are a corporate bot I hope you stub your toe. Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reform UK. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

"Queen's Counsel" paragraph added to the article on the politician Jim Allister

Hello, Athousandcuts2005.

Regarding your recent edit of the Wiki article on the Northern Irish politician Jim Allister, could you take a moment to reply to a couple of queries I have concerning parts of it?

As I understand it, in Wikipedia the content of an article ought to be relevant to the subject of the article.

What is the relation of the following phrase "said to have been done as a "birthday present" for Billy Wright"   to the article's subject (the Northern Irish unionist politician Jim Allister)?

Also, what is the relation of the phrase "who was already serving 12 years for gun possession"   to Mr Allister?

If you would like, we could open a discussion of the matter on the article's Talk page. BrownBowler (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Athousandcuts2005.

If you would prefer, we could discuss my queries about this edit on the Talk page for the article itself. I've opened a new paragraph there, called simply Queen's Counsel. Feel free to start the discussion. BrownBowler (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello again, Athousandcuts2005.

I see you've removed the two contentious phrases from the edit, viz., "who was already serving 12 years for gun possession" and "said to have been done as a "birthday present" for Billy Wright". Also, you've re-named the paragraph from "Queen's Counsel" to "Legal career".

For anyone who's interested, here's a link to the new " Legal career" paragraph in the Wikipedia article on Jim Allister.

Just a final thought. I don't know for sure but I estimate that his legal career started in the mid-70's. That's quite a lot of time to cover and he must have had hundreds of cases. The article is already, in my opinion, tediously long: so adding a lot more detail about his professional life, if that's what you intend to do, may not help the readers much. BrownBowler (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit added to Wikipedia article on the Democratic Unionist Party

Hello again, Athousandcuts2005.

Regarding your recent addition of an edit to the paragraph entitled "Associations with loyalist paramilitaries" on the Wikipedia page about the Democratic Unionist Party (see here), I've added a new discussion to the Talk page for article on Democratic Unionist Party. If you get a moment, would you take a look and maybe reply to the points raised?

In summary, my view is that the edit contravenes Wikipedia guidance found in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:COATRACK and WP:NOR and should therefore be removed in its entirety.BrownBowler (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Replying to my own post: in the absence of any discussion, I've removed this edit from the article on the Democratic Unionist Party. The cited source does not mention the DUP at all. Also, Jim Allister was not a member of the DUP when he represented McKeown. BrownBowler (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit added to the "Controversies section" of the Wikipedia article on the Traditional Unionist Voice political party

Hello again, Athousandcuts2005.

I've been looking at the addition you made in April 2024 to the Controversies section of the Wikipedia article on the Northern Irish unionist political party called Traditional Unionist Voice. Your edit commences with the words: "In 2010, the party distanced itself from Ann Cooper...". It seems to me that this edit has some shortcomings regarding the core Wikipedia content policies of Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV and Verifiability WP:V.

In summary, Ann Cooper wasn't a member of the Traditional Unionist Voice party when she made this Tweet, so this controversy involves Ann Cooper herself but not the Traditional Unionist Voice party. So, I think the entire edit should be removed from the Wikipedia article on the Traditional Unionist Voice.

If you care to take a look at the Talk Page for the article on the Traditional Unionist Voice political party, at the end of the paragraph entitled "Controversy section" (see here) I've added some notes which expand on my opinion of your edit. The discussion on "Controversies" is very long but my notes on this issue are at the end and they begin as follows: "For discussion of an edit to the paragraph "Controversies section". The edit was made in April 2024 by the editor Athousandcuts2005. I think the edit should be removed in its entirety due to shortcomings regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V".

As usual, please feel free to respond and maybe we can reach a consensus. BrownBowler (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)