User talk:219.88.68.195

Welcome!

Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!

Your IP address, 219.88.68.195, is registered to Spark New Zealand Network for Learning and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you.

To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free.

If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user.

Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}.

In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

June 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to David G. McAfee, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Excuse me, I provided perfectly valid and easily understood rationales in line with Wikipedia policies, in the edit summaries for both of the above, I'm afraid I'm baffled by your claim. Taking this to the talk page.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at David G. McAfee, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Blatantly abusing the warning template with these false assertions is neither an argument nor compelling, I'm really not sure who you think you're fooling, -re-inserting material that is not supported by the references, and providing no rationale or argument for doing so, while pointedly ignoring the point on the talk page, is not valid action or in line with Wikipedia policy. This isn't complicated, if you have an issue or a rational argument to make take it to the talk page.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Donner60. 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 Race card 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. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are citations in the paragraph you removed. I am not interested in getting into an edit war over whether this is original research and whether the citations are valid. Since this is arguably disputable, I am removing my message. I will not rollback my edit. However, I will not revert your edit if you restore it. Donner60 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Also left on the above's talk page); Thank you for your reply and retraction regarding non-neutrality, genuinely appreciated. I've left another comment on the talk page of the article regarding this. Previous to removing the text in question I presented a rationale on the talk page, including points about the citations which had been added after its previous removal as being uncited. I had left it there for a reasonable amount of time without anyone dissenting before editing, which I think is the correct process and demonstrates good faith.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Doctor

Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex^TW 02:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely nothing 'bold' about it, it's a matter of straight forward, objective, and inarguable fact, your reversion was inappropriate.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All edits are considered bold if they are contested. If it was contested, then it's clearly arguable. Discuss it on the article's talk page. -- Alex^TW 02:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, I'm contesting your edit reverting it without a valid argument.219.88.68.195 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was the initial one that needs to be discussed. Read the links I provided to you about BRD, STATUSQUO, and EW. And CONSENSUS. -- Alex^TW 03:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, my edits were justified and had a valid basis, you don't need to discuss valid edits before you make them, your revisions edits however did not have a valid basis. I have initiated a discussion on the talk-page though.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. If they are contested at all, regardless of what you personally think, then you need to discuss them. That's how Wikipedia works. -- Alex^TW 03:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False, -you still need to provide a valid argument to revert, which you did not. And obviously an edit can't be contested in any sense before you make it.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now I have, in the discussion you should have started directly after the first revision. Any edit can be contested. -- Alex^TW 03:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An edit **Can't** be contested **before** it's made. Unless your claiming some sort of precognitive ability? You shouldn't have made a revision without a valid basis.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I contested it after it was made by reverting it. That's when it's up to you to start a discussion. Your personal opinion of my "basis" is noted, but it's just that, your personal opinion. -- Alex^TW 03:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know when you reverted it, I'm saying the claim my initial edit needed to be discussed was false. It was not 'contested' until after I made it. And no, it's not necessarily up to me, the onus was on you to provide a valid edit summary to justify your reversion. I also just noted you falsely accused me of edit-warring in your initial message, if you'll actually check the definition I was not and did not. I didn't in fact repeatedly override anyone's contributions ('Once' is not repeatedly), in fact I didn't override anyone's contributions at all.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was contested after you made it. And thus, you had to discuss it after it was contested, which was after you made it. The onus is most definitely up to you to back up your edits. If any of my initial edits are ever reverted, it's up to me to discuss it. That's how Wikipedia works; I recommend reading up on it. Edit-warring does not need to consist of three reverts - even one revert can be considered as such. You restored your contested content without discussing. -- Alex^TW 04:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about the three revert rule, I pointed out I was not engaging in repeated reversion, i.e. edit-warring, and no, one edit cannot be considered such. Your behavior is verging on WP:WL. The onus is one anyone to back up their edits, including reversions. And repeatedly saying 'that's how Wikipedia works' is silly.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had an onus to backup your contested edit. Yes, I had an onus to back up my reversion. And as your edit was first, the onus was up to you first, to start a discussion, and then me. We have now both provided. If you're new here, best to not refer to guidelines and policies as "silly". -- Alex^TW 04:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't calling the guidelines and policies silly.219.88.68.195 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.