User talk:11 west

Welcome!

Hello, 11 west, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! El_C 01:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Seeking arbitration"

Arbitration is the last stage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I assure you that it will not be accepted at such an early stage. Anyway, one thing to keep in mind when it comes to sourced content in articles is that it needs to adhere to a notion of due weight — that is, fairly represent the scholarly and mainstream consensus. As for reaching consensus among editors in Wikipedia articles: the onus is actually on the editor who wishes to include the edit to go to the article talk page toward that end, whenever their edit is challenged. Thanks and good luck. El_C 01:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Punishable offense"

You're edit-warring for your preferred construction. Please stop, and please stop casting aspersions against other editors. Statements like "I expect you will be banned" have no place on the talkpage. Banham's account is a bit more nuanced than you're presenting - the term's derivation has roots in French, Swedish and English terminology. Banham certainly popularized the term, but that's not the same as originating it. You need independent sources that specifically credit Banham with originating the term, not quotes from Banham, and they need to stand up to sourcing that posits other origins. In these cases, there's rarely a clear-cut consensus,and the article doesn't have to come down unequivocally on one side or another. Above all, stop treating the article as a battleground, and other editors as opponents to be defeated. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion. Thank you for your comments. I am a bit upset that I am the only one that is chasticed in the main section, but that's ok. Please know that jtfolden's personal goal is to prove this phrase correct "the first brutalist building was made out of brick". It is what he widely circulates on the internet, and he has edited the original article with bias towards that personal theory.

My goal is to mention all of Banham's account, supported by reputably scholarly evidence and books/publications as sources rather than internet articles and sensational sources. I'd like to also ask you to understand this, step in, and be equivocal. Please note that jtfolden's reverse edit corrects ALL of my changes in the article, including for example errors such as Villa Goths date built 1949 (it is 1950). He can't continue undoing everything that I am doing without reading the changes closely and arguing the points as I obviously do in the talk page. Please be fair 11 west (talk) 08:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]