Misplaced Pages

User talk:Sharnadd: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:57, 2 December 2024 editSharnadd (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users515 edits →PieTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:28, 30 December 2024 edit undoSharnadd (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users515 edits →See WP:BRD: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply 
(55 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 130: Line 130:
== Pie == == Pie ==


Hey, thanks for your edits. I appreciate your effort Hey, thanks for your edits. I appreciate your effort.

== December 2024 ==

] Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a ]. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to ] and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at ]. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced1 --> ] (]) 09:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:There really isn't a place to add a source when it comes to the origin on lists of foods ] (]) 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, there is. You can add it in the column for origin or in the text column. At a pinch I could accept that the reference is in the target article, but ] does not say where it originated. Eaten in some country does not equal originating in that country, so still unsourced. ] (]) 11:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; 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 ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''&mdash;especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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&mdash;'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ]&thinsp;] 14:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been ]. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use ] for that. ''To be clear you said that you removed something that was incorrect, but as with many of your edits this is another unsourced change and your personal first hand knowledge does not matter. Plenty of sources specifically call out using a ] for these sandwiches, so the onus is on you to show that this is not true, not simply from your own assertions.''<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> ]&thinsp;] 02:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:You mean correcting the page from a Pullman loaf to a loaf of bread. The reason is that a Pullman loaf is not at all a common name for this type of bread..its and article that lists a sandwich as a British sandwich and we really don't use the amercian type of loaf ] (]) 03:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:I have added a citation showing that sandwhichs are made with loafs of bread ] (]) 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:Have added sources to show that a loaf of bread is used for making a sandwich rather than the local American term ] (]) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

== ANI ==

] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 08:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:can't find it your link just goes to someone called Raz and the American general election <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
::It appears that you've found it, but for reference you can find it . ]&thinsp;] 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::Have done but thanks for the help. It wasn't coming up on the search first time I looked so don't know if I was told just before she published it ] (]) 07:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

== Recent edits ==

I am still concerned with your edits, for example where it looks like you replaced coffee for book shops (is that really a common thing at MSAs? Also was your changing of the spelling from "mini supermarkets" to "min supermarkets" or is that jusd another case of intended changes? Also generally in articles like this, as you can see with the majority of the article, there is no specific mention of brands (ie spam/advertising) ]&thinsp;] 15:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

:No not replaced I had bookshops on with coffee shops and someone else removed bookshops yes it's one of the most common at service stations ] (]) 03:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::No, you are wrong. It was your edit that caused coffee to be replaced with books. It might not have been your intention, but nevertheless, you are still responsible for removing that information. ]&thinsp;] 05:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It didn't remove it as coffee shop was still listed during my edits at the end of the paragraph. It was actually pincrete that removed the coffee shop defence ] (]) 09:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::AH yes, you are indeed correct, I apologize, I see that you moved it to the end of the list from the middle of the list. However, still, what about "min market" and there is no reason to add links to specific brands. ]&thinsp;] 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

== Tyne and wear metro description ==

Is how the owners described the metro system accurate. Should their not be a citation that isn't from the business ] (]) 13:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

== Food origins ==

Please don't add "British" or "English" to dishes that are found all over the world. ] (]) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:Do you mean in foods that originated in the UK ] (]) 09:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:They were already listed as originating in the UK just adding to skirt description so they are listed in links correctly. If you believe that they are from elsewhere then feel free to add citations. If their a problem with listing a well known greek dish as coming from greece ] (]) 09:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::These foods not only exist in one country and the origins are often contested, unsourced or unclear which means that you add unsourced information. The short description was removed per my edit comment, see ]. ] (]) 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::There are already citations on the page for spanakopita describing it as Greece. So you don't mind the detailed description of the pie being called a greek pie but you don't want it in a short description. There are not unsourced. The sources are citations on the main page ] (]) 09:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes. My revert in Savory spinach pie was because the addition was misplaced, not because it lacked sources. I said so in my edit comment. ] (]) 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It was in the correct place under that particular pie to have it shown in annotated links ] (]) 13:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, annotated links do not work like that. Annotated links will apparently take the last short description in the article. I restored the short description temporarily and this is what an annotated link looks like now: ] – Greek spinach pie . As you can see, the annotated link has incorrect information since not all savory spinach pies are Greek. ] (]) 07:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::thanks when I put it on the spanakopita it was just appearing to link to that particularpie ] (]) 08:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

== See ] ==

When someone reverts your bold edit, and you still disagree, you need to discuss, not revert back you edit. Your continued POV pushing through repeated reverts without discussion will result in another ANI — if you really want to end up there again, keep it up. If you want to avoid that then please follow proper process and discuss your disagreement. And that does not take place in edit comments. ]&thinsp;] 05:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

:I have messaged you here. You really should have messaged me before reverting. Or looked up how common the term of pullman loaf is in regards to sandwiches which are not of american origins. It's also not a frequently used term in regards to bread used for making sandwiches on many other pages of Misplaced Pages. It's a uncommon amercian name that should not be applied to sandwiches from other countries. Even sandwiches that are American tend not to have the term on them ] (]) 05:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::Actually no. That is not how it works. You do not OWN these articles so the onus is NOT on others to seek permission from you. Did you even read BRD as suggested? You can make edits. I can revert them. And if you don’t like it we discuss to find consensus. Your arguments are rife with synthesis and original research. We can disagree but that doesn’t mean that you can just do whatever you want regardless of what you think is true. Misplaced Pages is built on reliable secondary sources. Pullman loaf article clearly shows European origins. And a ham sandwich isn’t uniquely English. Please stop trying your British POV pushing without reliable sources. ]&thinsp;] 05:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::that is true yes I read it I can revert edits that you incorrectly removed . It isn't really independently verifiable that that type of amercian bread is used in this British sandwhich as we really don't have it here..yes the Pullman loaf didn't have reliable sources Linking It this sandwhich It was a cucumber sandwich not ham. Please stop trying to push an American POV on the without sources ] (]) 05:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I am not POV pushing as I’m not the one changing the article. Rather I reverting edits that may be controversial and are largely ] or without a reliable source. Therefore if you really want to contest the revert, either provide a reliable source or engage in discussion. Those edits you have made that are properly source or not controversial, and follow ] have been permitted without contention.
::::Since you claim, {{tq|I can revert edits that you incorrectly removed}}, I ask for you to specifically quote where you can revert a revert you “disagree with”, as you . Please use an exact quote and provide the source. I don’t believe you found such permission. ]&thinsp;] 05:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::You would rather have an incorrect refence to an American make on an article than a generic one. You claim it's independently verifiable without verify it. .it has no sources yet you prefer it remains even though not shown to be correct. You are reverting edits that do not show an American point of view yet you have not went through other pages of sandwiches and insisted that they need a source to show they are made with loafs of bread ] (]) 05:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::You have not answered any questions but rather continue to just argue different points. I shall ask again for you to defend your very specific claim that you can revert someone who has reverted your edit. Citing specific policy or guidelines It was your claim, but once again just a claim with no evidence. ]&thinsp;] 06:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am solo replying on the admin page rather than continuing the discussion across three pages ] (]) 04:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Here is the basis for the initial revert:
::::# Pullman has existed in this article since 2008 with this
::::# Here are three recipies which support the pullman loaf claim:
::::# My own personal experience with these sandwiches have been made with "pullman style" bread.
::::To be clear I'm not saying if pullman is appropriate or inappropriate to be included, but what I am saying is that I don't find your edits or claims to be particularly convincing the removal of information dubious, so I reverted it. Often people realize that their edit was contested and drop the issue, but in some cases people feel quite strongly that they are correct, and the proper course of action (as has been conveyed to you MANY times) is to use the talk pages. But instead you have opted to enter an edit-war through the use of the revert tool. I am not asserting that Pullman is correct, but rather the revert was based on the method it was removed, and subsequently readded. ]&thinsp;] 21:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Rather than simply reverting something and claiming that unsourced information is correct you should take the time to add sources . Yes you have one french source and two recipes that show amercians use the term Pullman loaf. I can show dozens around the world from recipes historic books that show a loaf of bread is used. Loaf of bread also covered many countries. So when you accuse someone of wanting to claim items as British maybe reflect on your own behaviour ] (]) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Please consider as a response. ]&thinsp;] 04:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I have read it thanks and agreed to leave it 24 hrs next time before editing with sources . ] (]) 05:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Clearly you did not read the link that was provided to you by the administrator. '''It did not say''', wait 24 hours before adding contentious material. Perhaps you do not understand that ] that is provided for you to follow. So here it is provided again , please read all of it. The key that the admin emphasized was the word '''discuss''', he did not emphasis ''edit again with references''. From that link, what everyone is drawing your attention is step 3, {{tq| Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you.}} -- it was your content that was revered so you need to discuss it with the person who reverted you. Not further edit the page. ]&thinsp;] 05:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I did not states I would add contentious material. I said I would edit with sources. Why assume that edits are going to be contentious. Yes I do believe that you should learn to discuss things before reverting then without verifying the information. As stated and shown I will continue to raise discussion pages when editors revert spices information as they believe the original is verified because that personally know it to be true like you did or when editors revert information saying they aren't interested in reading sources as they don't think they will be correct. However you can not make people reply to a discussion page ] (]) 05:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::What would be your suggestion when a person reverts edits without reason without reading sources or because they believe it to be true but does not respond on the discussion page ] (]) 05:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::What I suggest is that you '''follow the established ], nothing more, nothing less.''' These are not my ideas or suggestions, but rather simply asking you to follow the rules to be a constructive editors on Misplaced Pages. Your question again further demonstrates you did not actually read ] otherwise you wouldn't have that question. Other pertinent policies that have previously been mentioned to you and would also help answer your hypothetical "what if" wowuld be to read: ], ] and ].
:::::::::::The majority of what you have contributed has been ''considered contentious'', and I don't think you believe that is true, but that is fact. This is supported by your abnormally high number of edits which have been reverted (34% directly reverted article edits which is a huge percentage), which has been compounded by your continued failure to follow policy regarding ]. And if wasn't already abundantly clear, an administrator says that '''you, Sharnadd, are the only one who is edit warring,''' notice that Sjö was specifically cleared of edit warring, and neither was I identified, only you.
:::::::::::You are welcome to contribute to article, you do not have to wait 24-hours, you can add something right now, but if it is reverted by anyone, '''do not re-add the same or similar information''' until you being a discussion with the person who has reverted your edit. It does not matter if it was sourced properly, it does not matter if it is true, or false, or a lie, or anything; '''if your edit was reverted, you must discuss it with the person who reverted you.''' What you cannot do is simply wait 24-hours to re-add the same contentious or reverted material. That does not evade the policy against edit warring, but rather three reverts within 24 hours is considered the BRIGHT LINE RULE. So please get the point, drop the stick, understand that others see you are POV-PUSHING. This has '''nothing to do with Pullan loaf''', or what sources you have, but rather your approach to editing and handling conflict. ]&thinsp;] 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have read the guidelines however they did not actually show what you stated. Yes though you may not be following the revert guidelines it is not correct to state that sjo was not noticed to have been edit warring with his quick three reverts . I was not going to put the same edit back on. I was asking what to do when people revert due to their personal beliefs without evidence like you did or without looking at resources and refusing to discuss like sjo. I was just using that as an example others could also see you as point of view pushing whe you make reverts without evidence due to your personal belief that something is true. I am always happy to discuss first however people have a tendency to revert and not reply ] (]) 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::As you have been admonished over at the ANI and as I stated above, the reason for the revert has no relevance to how you handle the process thereafter. You have, on multiple instances, violated policy. This is without dispute. As you can see over st the ANI, there is nothing indicating that the way your edits were reverted violated policy. My reverts had nothing to do with my beliefs on the subject, but exclusively on the nature of the edits. So stop believing and making accusation in bad faith by presuming what my believes are about Cucumber sandwiches or Pullman Loafs. Based on everything you’ve said, nobody cares why you violated policy. Your excuse does not justify your violation. But your continued arguing the point demonstrates that you still do not understand policy, feel like you should be entitled to make these contributions, and will try to find advocates who will reinforce behavior that violates policy. Please do not waste people’s time simply because you did not like the outcome. You said you’d drop the stick, but you continue to talk both other at ANI, article talk pages, user talk pages and startup new conversations at other boards — that is a far cry from dropping it. ]&thinsp;] 08:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Is there any reason you feel the need to continue with this conver after being informed to drop it. Yes regardless of you were ppb pushing with your reverts I have stated I will add a discussion to the talk page of the article in the future and wait for a reply rather than add further information or sources .I will not reply further as we have been informed to stop the discussion ] (]) 08:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
==ANI Notice==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.<!--Template:Discussion notice--><!--Template:ANI-notice--> ]&thinsp;] 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:28, 30 December 2024

Welcome!

Hello, Sharnadd!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Misplaced Pages community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, TheXug (talk) 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Belbury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Grilled cheese, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Belbury (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Biscuit (bread), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sigma440 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Grilled cheese recipe

The source I found at https://archive.org/details/b20392758/page/822/mode/2up doesn't describe cheese being grilled between two slices of toasted bread, but cheese on top of a single slice, which would be cheese on toast rather than a grilled cheese sandwich.

If you had a different Mrs Beeton recipe in mind, please be specific about it. Belbury (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

You were looking at the wrong recipe. The recipe is 1641 Sharnadd (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, can you give a link or a title for the recipe that you mean? Belbury (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Its cheese sandwich. You have already provided the link. It's a few pages back on the book link you provided Sharnadd (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I see it now! I've added it back to the article and updated the description and reference. Belbury (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Great thanks Sharnadd (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Fyrael. I noticed that you recently removed content from Ice cream parlor without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Misplaced Pages 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. -- Fyrael (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at fried chicken, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. oknazevad (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

its already citied lower down on the pahe..does it need to be cities twice Sharnadd (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Changing it to Scotland only ignores the sourced part about west African traditions that also contributed to the specific form of fried chicken that is the subject of the article, which wholly originated in what's now the slither US. It's not only overstating the Scottish contribution, it's erasing the African contribution. Frankly, it's whitewashing. That's not acceptable. oknazevad (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
true as the page is labeled fried chicken and not southern fried chicken I will remove place of origin as America as that is not true. Yes you should not ignore that the dish was first created in Scotland and then changed over time in the USA. Sharnadd (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Frying chicken is hardly original to Scotland. Yes, there were African antecedents of similar age. Because they have chickens in Africa. And have since long before the imperialistic colonizers came along in the 1800s. oknazevad (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
It was first created in Scotland. That is where the first record of it is from. Acknowledging where it comes from in no way takes away from slaves adjusting a recipe that was brought over to America Sharnadd (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon 13:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

Information icon Hi Sharnadd! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Delicatessen that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Misplaced Pages—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Not a big deal, but something to please keep in mind. Happy editing! :) CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Didn't realise will do thanks Sharnadd (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Zippybonzo. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Hundred Burgers—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 Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 10:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please revert the edit. The award that is stated is incorrect Sharnadd (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chicken burger, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thebirdlover (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Will go add a source thanks forgot to add the citation Sharnadd (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did with this edit to Delicatessen, you may be blocked from editing. Cassiopeia talk 05:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry it was accidental I was trying to add information about London's first with citations got the spacing wrong and accidently deleted some content below. I think I have now managed to add it Sharnadd (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
As I am trying to add an area of information for the UK but am having to post citations from reliable sources should the countries that have no citations added be removed Sharnadd (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Delicatessen. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

i.didnt.add anything that was poorly sourced Sharnadd (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
What source would you like for the history of the first delicatessen Sharnadd (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The source you added was a personal website/blog, which is unacceptable according to WP:UGC. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
i have added sources from the guardian and the daily mail now hope newspapers are okay. Can try and find the original article that would have been in the newspaper at the time. For united Kingdom I have added citations from.different newspapers and food websites thanks Sharnadd (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is unacceptable according to WP:DAILYMAIL. I didn't see The Guardian among the sources you added, although anything cited from a similarly reliable source would be ideal. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
thank you was trying to add it to the country information that was removed under United Kingdom. Should the other countries that have no citation information be removed ? Sharnadd (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Misplaced Pages articles. It is generally expected that the subjects of Misplaced Pages articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Misplaced Pages's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It is terrible to do it on a character description. This should contain general character information. Not information on the death of each character several series later Sharnadd (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Pie

Hey, thanks for your edits. I appreciate your effort.

December 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Sjö. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

There really isn't a place to add a source when it comes to the origin on lists of foods Sharnadd (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there is. You can add it in the column for origin or in the text column. At a pinch I could accept that the reference is in the target article, but Carrot soup does not say where it originated. Eaten in some country does not equal originating in that country, so still unsourced. Sjö (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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. TiggerJay (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did at Cucumber sandwich, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. To be clear you said that you removed something that was incorrect, but as with many of your edits this is another unsourced change and your personal first hand knowledge does not matter. Plenty of sources specifically call out using a pullman loaf for these sandwiches, so the onus is on you to show that this is not true, not simply from your own assertions. TiggerJay (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean correcting the page from a Pullman loaf to a loaf of bread. The reason is that a Pullman loaf is not at all a common name for this type of bread..its and article that lists a sandwich as a British sandwich and we really don't use the amercian type of loaf Sharnadd (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I have added a citation showing that sandwhichs are made with loafs of bread Sharnadd (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Have added sources to show that a loaf of bread is used for making a sandwich rather than the local American term Sharnadd (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarsenet (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

can't find it your link just goes to someone called Raz and the American general election — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharnadd (talk • contribs)
It appears that you've found it, but for reference you can find it here. TiggerJay (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Have done but thanks for the help. It wasn't coming up on the search first time I looked so don't know if I was told just before she published it Sharnadd (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

I am still concerned with your edits, for example this diff where it looks like you replaced coffee for book shops (is that really a common thing at MSAs? Also was your changing of the spelling from "mini supermarkets" to "min supermarkets" or is that jusd another case of intended changes? Also generally in articles like this, as you can see with the majority of the article, there is no specific mention of brands (ie spam/advertising) TiggerJay (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No not replaced I had bookshops on with coffee shops and someone else removed bookshops yes it's one of the most common at service stations Sharnadd (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. It was your edit that caused coffee to be replaced with books. It might not have been your intention, but nevertheless, you are still responsible for removing that information. TiggerJay (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
It didn't remove it as coffee shop was still listed during my edits at the end of the paragraph. It was actually pincrete that removed the coffee shop defence Sharnadd (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
AH yes, you are indeed correct, I apologize, I see that you moved it to the end of the list from the middle of the list. However, still, what about "min market" and there is no reason to add links to specific brands. TiggerJay (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Tyne and wear metro description

Is how the owners described the metro system accurate. Should their not be a citation that isn't from the business Sharnadd (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Food origins

Please don't add "British" or "English" to dishes that are found all over the world. Sjö (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean in foods that originated in the UK Sharnadd (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
They were already listed as originating in the UK just adding to skirt description so they are listed in links correctly. If you believe that they are from elsewhere then feel free to add citations. If their a problem with listing a well known greek dish as coming from greece Sharnadd (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
These foods not only exist in one country and the origins are often contested, unsourced or unclear which means that you add unsourced information. The short description was removed per my edit comment, see WP:Short descriptions. Sjö (talk) 09:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
There are already citations on the page for spanakopita describing it as Greece. So you don't mind the detailed description of the pie being called a greek pie but you don't want it in a short description. There are not unsourced. The sources are citations on the main page Sharnadd (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes. My revert in Savory spinach pie was because the addition was misplaced, not because it lacked sources. I said so in my edit comment. Sjö (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
It was in the correct place under that particular pie to have it shown in annotated links Sharnadd (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
No, annotated links do not work like that. Annotated links will apparently take the last short description in the article. I restored the short description temporarily and this is what an annotated link looks like now: Savory spinach pie – Greek spinach pie . As you can see, the annotated link has incorrect information since not all savory spinach pies are Greek. Sjö (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
thanks when I put it on the spanakopita it was just appearing to link to that particularpie Sharnadd (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BRD

When someone reverts your bold edit, and you still disagree, you need to discuss, not revert back you edit. Your continued POV pushing through repeated reverts without discussion will result in another ANI — if you really want to end up there again, keep it up. If you want to avoid that then please follow proper process and discuss your disagreement. And that does not take place in edit comments. TiggerJay (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have messaged you here. You really should have messaged me before reverting. Or looked up how common the term of pullman loaf is in regards to sandwiches which are not of american origins. It's also not a frequently used term in regards to bread used for making sandwiches on many other pages of Misplaced Pages. It's a uncommon amercian name that should not be applied to sandwiches from other countries. Even sandwiches that are American tend not to have the term on them Sharnadd (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually no. That is not how it works. You do not OWN these articles so the onus is NOT on others to seek permission from you. Did you even read BRD as suggested? You can make edits. I can revert them. And if you don’t like it we discuss to find consensus. Your arguments are rife with synthesis and original research. We can disagree but that doesn’t mean that you can just do whatever you want regardless of what you think is true. Misplaced Pages is built on reliable secondary sources. Pullman loaf article clearly shows European origins. And a ham sandwich isn’t uniquely English. Please stop trying your British POV pushing without reliable sources. TiggerJay (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
that is true yes I read it I can revert edits that you incorrectly removed . It isn't really independently verifiable that that type of amercian bread is used in this British sandwhich as we really don't have it here..yes the Pullman loaf didn't have reliable sources Linking It this sandwhich It was a cucumber sandwich not ham. Please stop trying to push an American POV on the without sources Sharnadd (talk) 05:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I am not POV pushing as I’m not the one changing the article. Rather I reverting edits that may be controversial and are largely WP:OR or without a reliable source. Therefore if you really want to contest the revert, either provide a reliable source or engage in discussion. Those edits you have made that are properly source or not controversial, and follow WP:P&G have been permitted without contention.
Since you claim, I can revert edits that you incorrectly removed, I ask for you to specifically quote where you can revert a revert you “disagree with”, as you . Please use an exact quote and provide the source. I don’t believe you found such permission. TiggerJay (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You would rather have an incorrect refence to an American make on an article than a generic one. You claim it's independently verifiable without verify it. .it has no sources yet you prefer it remains even though not shown to be correct. You are reverting edits that do not show an American point of view yet you have not went through other pages of sandwiches and insisted that they need a source to show they are made with loafs of bread Sharnadd (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You have not answered any questions but rather continue to just argue different points. I shall ask again for you to defend your very specific claim that you can revert someone who has reverted your edit. Citing specific policy or guidelines It was your claim, but once again just a claim with no evidence. TiggerJay (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I am solo replying on the admin page rather than continuing the discussion across three pages Sharnadd (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Here is the basis for the initial revert:
  1. Pullman has existed in this article since 2008 with this diff
  2. Here are three recipies which support the pullman loaf claim:
  3. My own personal experience with these sandwiches have been made with "pullman style" bread.
To be clear I'm not saying if pullman is appropriate or inappropriate to be included, but what I am saying is that I don't find your edits or claims to be particularly convincing the removal of information dubious, so I reverted it. Often people realize that their edit was contested and drop the issue, but in some cases people feel quite strongly that they are correct, and the proper course of action (as has been conveyed to you MANY times) is to use the talk pages. But instead you have opted to enter an edit-war through the use of the revert tool. I am not asserting that Pullman is correct, but rather the revert was based on the method it was removed, and subsequently readded. TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Rather than simply reverting something and claiming that unsourced information is correct you should take the time to add sources . Yes you have one french source and two recipes that show amercians use the term Pullman loaf. I can show dozens around the world from recipes historic books that show a loaf of bread is used. Loaf of bread also covered many countries. So when you accuse someone of wanting to claim items as British maybe reflect on your own behaviour Sharnadd (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Please consider this as a response. TiggerJay (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I have read it thanks and agreed to leave it 24 hrs next time before editing with sources . Sharnadd (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Clearly you did not read the link that was provided to you by the administrator. It did not say, wait 24 hours before adding contentious material. Perhaps you do not understand that blue text is a link that is provided for you to follow. So here it is provided again HERE, please read all of it. The key that the admin emphasized was the word discuss, he did not emphasis edit again with references. From that link, what everyone is drawing your attention is step 3, Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. -- it was your content that was revered so you need to discuss it with the person who reverted you. Not further edit the page. TiggerJay (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not states I would add contentious material. I said I would edit with sources. Why assume that edits are going to be contentious. Yes I do believe that you should learn to discuss things before reverting then without verifying the information. As stated and shown I will continue to raise discussion pages when editors revert spices information as they believe the original is verified because that personally know it to be true like you did or when editors revert information saying they aren't interested in reading sources as they don't think they will be correct. However you can not make people reply to a discussion page Sharnadd (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
What would be your suggestion when a person reverts edits without reason without reading sources or because they believe it to be true but does not respond on the discussion page Sharnadd (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
What I suggest is that you follow the established Guidelines and Policies of Misplaced Pages, nothing more, nothing less. These are not my ideas or suggestions, but rather simply asking you to follow the rules to be a constructive editors on Misplaced Pages. Your question again further demonstrates you did not actually read WP:BRD otherwise you wouldn't have that question. Other pertinent policies that have previously been mentioned to you and would also help answer your hypothetical "what if" wowuld be to read: WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:DISPUTE.
The majority of what you have contributed has been considered contentious, and I don't think you believe that is true, but that is fact. This is supported by your abnormally high number of edits which have been reverted (34% directly reverted article edits which is a huge percentage), which has been compounded by your continued failure to follow policy regarding WP:REVERT. And if wasn't already abundantly clear, an administrator says that you, Sharnadd, are the only one who is edit warring, notice that Sjö was specifically cleared of edit warring, and neither was I identified, only you.
You are welcome to contribute to article, you do not have to wait 24-hours, you can add something right now, but if it is reverted by anyone, do not re-add the same or similar information until you being a discussion with the person who has reverted your edit. It does not matter if it was sourced properly, it does not matter if it is true, or false, or a lie, or anything; if your edit was reverted, you must discuss it with the person who reverted you. What you cannot do is simply wait 24-hours to re-add the same contentious or reverted material. That does not evade the policy against edit warring, but rather three reverts within 24 hours is considered the BRIGHT LINE RULE. So please get the point, drop the stick, understand that others see you are POV-PUSHING. This has nothing to do with Pullan loaf, or what sources you have, but rather your approach to editing and handling conflict. TiggerJay (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I have read the guidelines however they did not actually show what you stated. Yes though you may not be following the revert guidelines it is not correct to state that sjo was not noticed to have been edit warring with his quick three reverts . I was not going to put the same edit back on. I was asking what to do when people revert due to their personal beliefs without evidence like you did or without looking at resources and refusing to discuss like sjo. I was just using that as an example others could also see you as point of view pushing whe you make reverts without evidence due to your personal belief that something is true. I am always happy to discuss first however people have a tendency to revert and not reply Sharnadd (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
As you have been admonished over at the ANI and as I stated above, the reason for the revert has no relevance to how you handle the process thereafter. You have, on multiple instances, violated policy. This is without dispute. As you can see over st the ANI, there is nothing indicating that the way your edits were reverted violated policy. My reverts had nothing to do with my beliefs on the subject, but exclusively on the nature of the edits. So stop believing and making accusation in bad faith by presuming what my believes are about Cucumber sandwiches or Pullman Loafs. Based on everything you’ve said, nobody cares why you violated policy. Your excuse does not justify your violation. But your continued arguing the point demonstrates that you still do not understand policy, feel like you should be entitled to make these contributions, and will try to find advocates who will reinforce behavior that violates policy. Please do not waste people’s time simply because you did not like the outcome. You said you’d drop the stick, but you continue to talk both other at ANI, article talk pages, user talk pages and startup new conversations at other boards — that is a far cry from dropping it. TiggerJay (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there any reason you feel the need to continue with this conver after being informed to drop it. Yes regardless of you were ppb pushing with your reverts I have stated I will add a discussion to the talk page of the article in the future and wait for a reply rather than add further information or sources .I will not reply further as we have been informed to stop the discussion Sharnadd (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. TiggerJay (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)