User talk:Galileeblack

July 2018

Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Beatitudes— because it 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 or my talk page. Thank you. Serols (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Beatitudes. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Beatitudes was changed by Galileeblack (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.922259 on 2018-07-15T17:30:07+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hello, I'm Bsoyka. I noticed that you recently removed content from Saint Patrick's Breastplate without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bsoyka 🗣️ 04:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. E. Housman

You won't learn, will you? Take a look at WP:LEAD before you make any more changes to the lead section of any article. Your first change to the one on Housman about the "mystery and beauty" of youth, whatever that vapid description means, was made to a sourced statement about the drawbacks of a country upbringing and does not reflect what is written there. Later in the main article it is explained that sales of A Shropshire Lad were initially limited until the death rate during the second Boer War made the poems more relevant to young men. Your changes to the time period were therefore not as accurate. I suggest you leave alone articles about which you know nothing, or at least take the trouble to read them first before making changes to the lead. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOu ought to read the poem and tell me how anyone can be "wistful" for constraints and restraints. He's wistful for the blue hills, etc. of his youth. He also discusses many dark matters that go on everywhere; he evokes the mysteries of life, including untimely death. I think readers would be drawn to the source when it is accurately described, please see Harold Bloom's take on Housman before throwing out your supposed "authorative source". Also he is not really primarily Edwardian, earlier than that. Criticism is always subjective and Wikapedia should be about introducing people to artists they may not be familiar with, not promotimg the tired, pedantic attitudes of a handful of people who don't read but merely catalog most of the time. This is my last remarks to you on the matter, don't text me anymore about it. Galileeblack (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also why do you care about what else I edit? I edited and they finally got it accurate or at least more accurate. You, however, with your condescending demeaning remarks about my edits seem to be one of those who go on this site to flaunt your "superior knowledge" which is not nearly as "learned" as you pretend. You haven't read this source or you wouldn't make inaccurate time references and say Housman is "wistful" for his "constrained experience." Do you know the meaning of the word "wistful"? I left it in because he is indeed "wistful" for what has been lost after he left his childhood abode. Maybe I should review all of your edits and see what else you pretend to understand without a whit of real comprehension of what a poem is. Galileeblack (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was rewritten according to Wikipedia guidelines. Deleting it without even an edit summary counts as WP:disruption. Editing here is a cooperative venture and that privilege can be withdrawn by the administrators. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at A. E. Housman 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.