User talk:198.23.5.10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Turgan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Dominica, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Turgan Talk 17:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Epicgenius. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Wynton Marsalis because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Super48paul. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to One for the Angels because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Super48paul (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Leechburg, Pennsylvania has been reverted.
Your edit here to Leechburg, Pennsylvania was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Leechburg-Cemetery-Company/208876755802203) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.


Welcome![edit]

Hello, 198.23.5.10, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Carliitaeliza TALK 15:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! 198.23.5.10, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Carliitaeliza TALK 15:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

January 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Anon126. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Teffi because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the 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! Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 15:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Jim1138. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to User:AvicBot— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ping me with {{u|Jim1138}} and sign "~~~~" or message me on my talk page. 04:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Campus sexual assault[edit]

Hi,

You reverted my revert of you on the campus sexual assault article. A back-and-forth would be unhelpful so I'll try to hash this out rather than reverting again. Before we get into the actual substance of this issue, I'd like to ask you to work on a precarious bit of text. Of Harvard, you said,

"87% sexual assaults happened in co-ed college managed dormitories[.]"

The source you used, the Boston Globe, says the following:

"According to the survey results, 87 percent of female victims of sexual assault occurred in dormitories[.]"

Your edit describes the dormitories as "co-ed college managed." The source you used does not. While there are probably no Harvard dormitories that aren't managed by the school, the word "co-ed" either itself needs a source (is every dorm at Harvard co-ed?) or it has to go.

That said, I was hoping for an explanation of your edit summary reverting me, where you said your edit was "Well sourced and extremely topical." The implication here is really confusing. "Because it's true" or "because it's well-sourced" are not standards for inclusion on Wikipedia, and believe it or not, "it's relevant" isn't quite enough either. Furthermore, I never said your edit was false, poorly-sourced, or irrelevant so it's strange that you reacted to my revert like you did. For what it's worth, I believe your edit to be accurate, (mostly) well-sourced, and topical.

As for me, I provided an edit summary explaining myself: "Removed excessively (even suspiciously) defensive material; the claim that 'it should be noted' isn't verified in the sources and seems to be a statement of fact from the editor, not a source."

You replaced the phrase "it should be noted" with "for context". I can't tell exactly how this is an improvement because the phrases are both pretty meaningless and your text gets the same point across if you don't include either (or anything else). That's not to mention that, like your claim that "it should be noted," you have no reliable source indicating that your edit is, in context, an important addition to the article. (I'd say it's impossible for you to get a reliable source that essentially says that "here's information that should be added to Wikipedia for the sake of context.")

And when I said that your edits were "excessively (even suspiciously) defensive," I was talking generally about generally about everything but specifically about "These policies are challenging to students because non-verbal cues are difficult to interpret and the policies are confusing." That sentence has three parts, and if the second and third parts were sourced appropriately, the first wouldn't need to be sourced because it would be obviously true. The second part of that sentence does not appear to be sourced. Your source, an article in the New York Times by Sandy Keehan, says nothing to verify the plain statement that "non-verbal cues are difficult [for students] to interpret" and indeed, if you look at what Keehan said about men, a majority (61%) would claim that they're able to decipher consent via body language. I also couldn't find where in the article you found anything backing up the claim that "the policies are confusing" because at one point it says that the affirmative consent law in New York "standardizes prevention and response policies and procedures relating to sexual assault." I actually think Keehan was trying to get across the opposite point here: she bookends the article with two anecdotes from Tyler Frahme, a college student in Albany, who starts off upset about the new law but a month later is happy it's there.

My guess is that the context you're hoping to provide is a sort of pushback edit against an article that you feel is slanted too far in favor of people, sources, etc. that don't believe the concerns you raise are valid. If you believe that, you're not necessarily wrong; this sort of information could be helpful. But if it's a pushback edit, that means you have an agenda and that's a pretty big issue. Using edit summaries like "Qualifier given this section seems to suggest most assaults happen in fraternities" indicates you're using edits to push your opinions and beliefs on a very contentious topic. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm FuriouslySerene. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Robin Camp seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.