User talk:Happywikimember

March 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Will and testament have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Will and testament was changed by Happywikimember (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.875891 on 2024-03-04T05:00:30+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happywikimember! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Will and testament several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Will and testament, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Will and testament, 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probate code section 6401. The content I provide is ONLY the reflection or my interpretation of what the law is in the subject at issue. I will provide the codification(s) of the text of law (s), to which I am making reference, at the conclusion of each edit I make. Happywikimember (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like original research, which is not accepted. This isn't about the validity of the content, it's all about the sourcing. Wikipedia does not think you are lying, or are wrong. It's just that you have to help Wikipedia vouch for your edits. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean you were aware the previous content was wrong and misleading? or that Wikipedia does not pretend to be the source? Happywikimember (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might also keep in mind that at least one editor has suggested the article is in danger of becoming too U.S.-centric. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Will and testament, you may be blocked from editing. — Manticore 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The previous information which I am apparently unable to correct is false and misleading. A will is NOT the estate of a deceased person. A devisee is someone listed in a will entitled to receive a devise, per the decedent's wish. An heir is someone entitled to receive the estate of a deceased person who dies without a will, by law. Happywikimember (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under what ground? A will is NOT a document expressing a testator's wish as to how their estate is to be distributed upon their death, but lists WHOM is to receive a specific property called a DEVISE. (It has nothing to do with either "how" or "estate" ). Otherwise, the entitled survivor or successor-in-interest, as defined by law of intestacy, inherits the estate of someone who dies intestate. ( how? WITHOUT A WILL ) Happywikimember (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not arguing the validity of the content you are adding, it's the lack of sources. Please see Help:Referencing for beginners for help. Sourcing is at the very foundation of how Wikipedia works, and people do get blocked for persistently adding unsourced content. You can learn more about the importance of sources at Wikipedia by reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or you can have a demonstration. _signed,Willondon (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that in the UK ( whereabout ? England ( which we know includes Wales ), Scotland, or Ireland ?) an estate represents the property to be distributed in a person's will? Well, in the State of California, United States, an estate represents the property of a person who dies without a will. This is not ego-centric, is it? Happywikimember (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue until you've paid. _signed,Willondon (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, it is more the lack of resources which at the source of the problem that the lack of source. Does charging money to receive content which you know is neither a lie nor wrong, and free, contrary to nature or the essence of Wikipedia? Happywikimember (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate bit of whimsy on my part, since Wikipedia does not accept money in exchange for any editing, or allow others to edit-for-pay. I assumed wrongly that the Argument Clinic sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus was widely enough known that my reference would be understood. It was my facetious though failed attempt to humorously communicate that I don't wish to argue anymore. I'm happy to continue helping you with advice and information on how Wikipedia works, but I certainly don't have the time to argue about how it works with a new editor. _signed,Willondon (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Individual. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments belong on the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and may respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. miranda ^:3 05:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Will and testament

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Will and testament. 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. — Manticore 23:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]