User talk:Floodsmy

Floodsmy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Floodsmy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines

Hello. Wikipedia contributors are expected to use edit summaries to explain the rationale of their edits, and to use reliable sources to support their edits. Blanking of already cited or supported content requires an explanation - at the very least. And adding new content requires explanation - at the very least. From the pattern of editing it seems that you have a very specific area of interest - and are specifically focused on removing any reference to the RIC from any article or context which is even slightly "negative" in its description of actions of members of the RIC. Often bordering on outright historical revisionism. While balance in some cases may be required, "air brushing" of history is not. If you are aware of (for example) reliable sources which support the suggestion that the RIC had no act, hand nor part in Bloody Sunday 1920, then please provide it. Otherwise, please consider tempering your apparent crusade. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Me again. Raising the same issue. Again. Please stop removing references to the RIC from articles where there is context and relevance to the organisation's inclusion. During in the Rising, for example, the RIC found themselves in conflict with the Volunteers. Any suggestion otherwise is revisionist at best. Guliolopez (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Continuing to remove references to the RIC from multiple articles (where there is reasonable, cited and consensus-based rationale for the references to remain) is disruptive editing. Persistently disruptive editors may be subject to a block or other sanction. If you continue with this course of editing (without consideration to the guidelines on using edit summaries, engaging with other editors, and generally not following the project's basic standards for consensus editing, editor etiquette and providing references), I will personally move for an admin-backed escalation. As per WP:IDHT. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi. Please use edit summaries. If you cannot add a reasonable edit summary, to explain your rationale, then perhaps you should reconsider your rationale. Guliolopez (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

PLease use edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You have previously been asked to do this, yet continue to make changes without any explanation DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Floodsmy. Thank you. Scolaire (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)