User talk:76.19.197.84

January 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. CardinalDan (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My edits did not appear to constitute vandalism under any known definition of the term, including Wikipedia's. Nor were they unconstructive. I merely asked for source attribution. This "reversion" is not fixing my error; it is preserving those of others. Labeling me an Internet "vandal" without any supporting evidence easily consitutes libel under United States law. I'll weigh my options.

March 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Geralt of Rivia. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is unsourced. Why is the person who creates a page and makes extensive unsourced propositions privileged over those who attempt to ask for clarity, and why should that be done only on a talk page? By these standards, the entire article belong on its own talk page. Championing the "flow" of a stub article that does not meet basic attribution standards in the first place is silly. Also typically, the editor here engaged in "reversion," accomplishing the elimination of my skepticism and the retention of the error, without mentioning it on the talk page himself/herself. If you truly think a statement has merit and must be removed solely for stylistic reasons, surely you have the responsibility to transfer and preserve that statement in some proper place.

---