User talk:67.177.112.196

February 2019

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – Þjarkur (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

April 2019

Hello, I'm INeedSupport. 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 Hurricane Michael seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. INeedSupport ^:3 19:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hurricane Michael. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Biografer (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Also, what does Democrats and Republicans have to do with the Hurricane Michael in your edit summary?--Biografer (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

My edits are balanced and use a wide variety of reputable even primary sources. Please refrain from your edit warring. WP:EW 67.177.112.196 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Explain impartial/partial if this is not about Democrats and Republicans. BTW if you want to see something very partial take a look at Hurricane Maria Criticism of U.S. government response. 67.177.112.196 (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hurricane Michael shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Every other editor involved here has reverted exactly once. It is great that you started a talk page discussion, however it should be made clear that you were the one primarily engaging in edit warring, and you could have been blocked since you tried to insert the material at least four times now. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

While others have teamed up to avoid violation of the three revert rule, I've reverted exactly ZERO times. Had the others been interested in avoiding an edit war, they' have started the talk page entry. Yet I needed to. This is a clear example of bias and censorship. 67.177.112.196 (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, each edit I made was in response to their stated revert objections. They were the same type of edits that should have been made by the tag-team/sockpuppet reverters. See WP:RV When to revert. 67.177.112.196 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Now Lets take a look at the when to revert policy...

"Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting."

This is clearly *not* what was done to my addition. Given "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting." The tag team/sockpuppet reversions were a clear violation of the edit warring policy

"If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, *make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.*"

Obviously this is not what others did to my edit.

"Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor."

Despite the edit's not being good-faith reverted in good faith I revised the edit to adjust for the justification (include the feedback) made by the tag team reverters.

"If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus."

While I went to the talk page to discuss the addition - the tag team reverters shut down editing to censor my addition.

"Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives."

Exactly what I did.

"During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). Note that this process is meant for managing resolution of disputes while discussion is taking place. It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling."

The tag team reverters did exactly what this section says should not be done.

"Do not revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username. You cannot remove or change prior edit summaries by reverting, even if you made the edit in question. If an edit summary violates the privacy policy or otherwise qualifies for oversighting or deletion, then see Help:Edit summary#Fixing. Otherwise, ignore it. In the case of a bad username, see WP:BADNAME."

Does not apply.

If you are going to grind an ax or pick fights, then please leave the project until such time that you can comment without doing so. Read WP:DBQ, and perhaps most importantly, WP:AGF. I do not mean to be WP:BITEy but no one will want to work with you if you are going to be so confrontational.

The one correct action you took was to start the talk page discussion and even that should have been done after you were first reverted, not three times later. Re-inserting your material counts as reverting even without explicit use of the undo function. Do not attempt to argue over exact semantics or interpret policies in arcane ways here. Tu quoque will not convince anyone. The fact that several editors reverted you should have hinted to you that your edits had no supporting consensus. If you had continued inserting the material after the warning you almost surely would have been blocked. Believing you are right is no justification for reinserting the material. And we did not "revert an otherwise good edit solely because an editor used a poor edit summary or has a bad username". To the contrary, it is and has always been the content of your edits that prompted the reverts. By the way, I removed your comments on the article talk page; per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, they are not to be placed in-line in the middle of my comment and I am not going to attempt to fix your comments in such a way as to preserve their original intent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's get a few things straight:

1. Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay, not a policy. And in any case, the status quo was before you inserted the information. Per WP:BRD the onus was on you to start a discussion, not us, and the burden to justify the material is on you, not us.
2. Do not reply by editing my comment. Place your comments strictly after mine.
3. Your assertion of "tag-teaming" lacks evidence. I am completely separate from all the other editors there. You clearly did not read WP:DBQ so, here you are being asked to read it again. None of us were edit warring, while you most definitely were. You may not attempt to get consensus by repeatedly revising your material, and reinserting it is most definitely a partial revert. Doing so repeatedly is edit warring. This is not debatable.
4. If you continue wrongly accusing me or others of socking without evidence, such will be construed as personal attacks in and of themselves and will likely lead to a block. Since I think there is value in inserting some material on this topic, that would be an unfortunate step to take, but your overall approach to this is not workable.
5. And finally, you are not at all helping your case since you have yet to actually suggest any concrete revisions to bring it in line with content policies.
6. Your overall attitude of "I was never wrong" really comes off as combative, abrasive, and overall unwelcome on a collaborative project like this one.
7. I would rather much have you read everything I've linked to thoroughly, completely revise the content, suggest the revision on the talk page, and ask for my feedback, instead of trying to falliciously argue your way out of having to address the policy violations.

Lastly, if you again reply by inserting your sentences in the middle of mine, I will once again remove it. Please read WP:TPG.--Jasper Deng (talk)

Obviously the rapid succession of reversions in violation of the WP:QUO policy is clear evidence of tag-teaming. From WP:QUO "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting." What part of removing the word "yet" and changing the reference from Hurricane Sandy to Hurricane Andrew do you not understand are "concrete revisions?" As you have made it obvious you are clearly part of a stonewall (See WP:Stonewalling ) campaign it's worthless to discuss this with you any further. Find a different spokesperson without such a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy.67.177.112.196 (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)