Please desist from your recent activity at the Isle of Man page. Your edits are biased, unsourced and breech the 3RR policy in place here in Wikipedia. Further disruptive action may lead to the blocking of this IP address. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can i be seen as biased? I've lived here for a very long time and any comments i've made are to make the page less biased if anything. I have for example added context and detail to the exagerrated suggestion of usage of the Manx language in both schools and in business. I have added sourced information about transport that isn't already on here. I've added important and sourced information about the film industry which isn't here.

Bias also includes making comments or adding in material which could be construed as such without using any supporting evidence or references such as this edit. Where is the evidence, specifically related to the Isle of Man, that most adults remember little of what they learn at school, and more specifically, that they remember little Manx. It may be true, but it is not verifiable. You have also used weasel words which are unnecessary and add nothing to the article such as you did with this edit. Other edits you made also consisted of unencyclopaedic language such as this edit.

An editor above suggested you take a look at the welcome page. You are most welcome to contribute to the encyclopaedia. But please do so in a constructive manner. Please also consider using the edit summary just below the edit box which allows other users see what was done in that edit. You should also consider creating an account which allows for more features such as e-mailing, page moves, etc. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: You should also consider using the talk page to discuss changes. This way all those with an interest in the topic can agree on the format and wording of proposed amendments. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"this edit" where i changed the context so that it specifically referred to the Manx language rather than everything that they learned at school? There is no context to the previous text and it makes it appear that my island is awash with Manx speakers when it isn't.

Some of the other text refers to common usage of "moghrey mie" when infact its main usage is on Manx Radio. Being spoken on Manx Radio with very occasional use in general does not make it "common usage". Where is the supporting evidence that it is "common usage"? Amongst other amendments, I have added text about aviation on the island which was referenced but which was deleted. I can understand some of my text being amended, but to be deleted in full (including references) is not constructive

And this is why you should discuss the edits first. So much of your edits appeared not to be constructive that I simply reverted. Particularly when they were flying in so quickly and appeared so haphazard. This prevents any other user from accurately editing and inserting the correct format. It was not in any attempt to undermine any constructive edits on your part - it was simply to allow other editors the chance to be able to positively contribute. Regarding the use of "traa dy liooar" as reddyn lheid as shen, your change from "frequently" to "occasionally" was not an improvement. There is a problem with the use of the first in that it is not referenced, but likewise there is no reference for the version you put in. A possible alternative could have been "the phrase "traa dy liooar" can also be heard". There is no frequency implied here which is obviously where you had the problem. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 16:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that you found my edits not to be constructive. I'm sorry that i found your mass deletions of everything I amended to be even less constructive.

Well that's why you were pointed to the welcome page - so as to avoid this scenario. And that is what happens when you obviously didn't go to the welcome page where it would have provided you with the information on how to edit constructively, how to sign comments and how to use the edit summary box. Opinions have no place here. It's an encyclopaedia - not a forum. And one of wikipedia's rules is to revert to the stable version if unconstructive edits occur. This is what I did. You may have not found it constructive - but Wikipedia does. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 17:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've used your opinion to go above and beyond your role

No I haven't. I have been a member of Wikipedia for more than 5 years and am active on almost 10 wikimedia projects including as an administrator on the Manx language Wikipedia. I am well versed in the rules, regulations, policies, procedures and guidelines required for Wikipedia. You were shown the welcome page which you ignored. You were asked to use the edit summary but you didn't. You were asked to provide references but you didn't. You were asked to discuss the edits but you didn't. You were warned about disruptive editing but you persisted. It is not an opinion - you yourself provided me with the evidence. Please read Wikipedia's rules where you will find the policies behind the reverts I made - some of which I outlined to you but which you obviously ignored. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 21:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any edits since you mentioned edit summary or since you asked me to discuss them. None at all. So i've done quite the opposite of ignore. I did provide references and sources - you effectively deleted 12 sections because 1 may not have been correctly referenced. Fantastic. The only opinions on top of what the half the Isle of Man page consists of is your incorrect opinion that my referenced information, for example, about airfields and the failing film industry were opinions. Anyway I'm not that bothered, just bothered i wasted my time trying to ammend what now appears just to be some kind of intention to make an Celtic advert out of my island. Cheerio

For your information - here are the edits you made, together with the reasons as to why they were problematic:

• Vandalism and insertion of libelous content, without explanation
• unsourced, unverified material, without explanation
• unsourced, unverified material, without explanation
• reverting edits without explanation
• poor spelling, inaccurate information (there are colleges), biased information (source mentions nothing about PR), addition of material using an incorrect source, without explanation
• unsourced, unverified material, without explanation
• grammar, incorrect formatting, without explanation
• use of weasel words, unsourced material, without explanation
• conjecture, WP does not allow conjecture unless sourced, without explanation
• unsourced material, without explanation
• use of weasel words, unsourced material, without explanation
• poor grammar, spelling mistakes, circular referencing, conjecture, unsourced material, without explanation
• unsourced material, without explanation
• insertion of weasel words, without explanation
• unsourced, unverified material (source does not back up claim), unencyclopaedic language, weasel words, without explanation
• unexplained deletion of material, without explanation
• unsourced, unverified, biased material, use of weasel words, incorrect use of sources (do not back up the claim), without explanation
• unsourced, unverified material, without explanation
• unexplained reverting of another editor's material

These are all of your edits. Every single one of them breached Wikipedia guidelines. I have not included your edits to Shoprite, and to be honest I couldn't be bothered. If every single one of your other edits had problems I am quite sure there are problems there too. As I and another editor have already stated, you are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia. But please do so in a constructive manner. ^Mac Tíre _Cowag 10:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous, missed the point about not ignoring though once told to stop. You've been most unhelpful, thanks

Your first warning came at 14:50 yesterday and it included advice on how to contribute. You ignored it and continued with disruptive editing. I then advised through edit reverts why I was doing so. You ignored those. I then provided you with some of the rules and regulations you were breaking. You obviously didn't check those. User Struway and I combined offered you advice on how to edit, we offered you links to helpful articles which advise on how to edit, and we provided you with many of the rules and guidelines. You chose to ignore them. We were helpful - you just chose not to take the help. That is not our fault - it is yours.^Mac Tíre _Cowag 14:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrrreat