User talk:86.181.0.154

August 2022

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edits to radio, as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edits had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here.

In addition, it is best not to falsely accuse other editors of "vandalism", unless the behavior in question falls under Wikipedia's definition of that term. An attempt to bring an article filled with content taht violates Wikipedia policies into line with those policies is never "vandalism", simply because you disagree with it. Doing so could also be considered a violation of various Wikipedia's policies, including those that require us to be civil to one another, to assume good faith, and refrain from attacking other editors.

The approach that I take with articles filled with large amounts of uncited material is one that I worked out with other editors as a compromise in a discussion on Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales' talk page back in 2009. It involves fact-tagging the material, and then moving to the talk page after a month, complete with a diff that shows precisely where each passage was in the article. This makes it easier for editors who wish to restore that material to do so once they have the required citations, and indeed, this tends to spur editors to do just that. If you want to restore that material, pleae do so only if you can accompany that material with the citations required by Wikipedia.

I don't know if you're a veteran editor currently using an IP for some extenuating reason, or if you are a newbie as most IP editors I've observed (I kinda got the former vibe from your edit summary, but I wasn't sure), but regarding the rationale you expressed in your edit summary, material that violates policy does not have "de facto consensus" simply because it has gone undetected or unaddressed for years. The defamatory material in that had been added to the John Seigenthaler article in 2005, and which lead to the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, was in that article for four months. Does this mean that it had "consensus." Bottom line: the validity of inclusion of material is determined by whether it adheres to Wikipedia's policies governing verifiability, due weight, source reliability, etc. Arguing that its validity should instead be determined on the basis of how long it's been in the article is a non sequitur, and is one that does not reflect the consensus of the editing community here. Please do not add or restore much material again, or attack other editors with whom you disagree.

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: As you surmised, I have been here for some time. I have seen many of these spats where editors carpet delete mass quantities of articles because they are unreferenced (quoting all manner of policies). A particularly large example was at Alternator back in 2018 where well over half the article was deleted as being unreferenced (which was actually the case). It was repeatedly restored by three editors (interestingly including the same editor who originally reverted your deletion at Radio). The unreferenced material is still in Alternator and still unreferenced. The two editors who were repeatedly deleting it quoting much the same policies as yourself, no longer edit as both were indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. This example is far from unique so, trust me, I know what I am talking about.

Your example above is not a good one because defamatory material about any deceased person is never allowed unless impeccably sourced. If that person is still alive, it is not allowed at all, because under United States law, defamatory material can be libellous if included with intent to dishonour the subject, even if it is true - which in an environment such as this is next to impossible to disprove. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the material in the John Seigenthaler was defamatory does not mean that that is the sole reason why it was unacceptable for it to remain in that article. The underlying point is that the validity of including a given set of information is determined by whether it adheres to policy, and not "how long has it been in the article," as this latter criterion is not logically sound as a standard for determining whether material should remain, and does not reflect the editing practices of the community here. Do you disagree with this? If so, tell me why. I'd like to read your reasoning here.

You repeatedly say that the editors you have referenced "quoting all manner of policies", which if I infer correctly, was your way of implying that their citation of those policies was....what? Incorrect? Forgive me if I'm misinterepreting you, but you never actually state that their citation of those policies was wrong, much less why? So I'll ask you: Which policies did they cite, do you believe that their citation of them was inaccurate, and if so, why?

Is it your position that adding/restoring/keeping large amounts of uncited material in an article, including material that may in part or in whole be derived from the personal knowledge of the editor(s) who added it properly adheres to WP:V, WP:NOR, et al?

As far as the anecdote that you related about these other editors, who were they? Can you link me to the discussion(s) in question? Were their activities deemed disruptive solely because they removed material, or for other reasons instead of/in addition to this? The reason I ask because I recently had a discussion on this matter stemming from another admin who claimed that this was "disruptive". What followed was another set of discussion, on Jimbo Wales' talk page, on my talk page, at the Village Pump, etc., and it revealed that his/her position did not reflect consensus.

Another admin, in fact, opined that there was no basis to block me for this practice of mine. So on the face of it, I question whether you are omitting some crucial details in your comparison of myself to those editors you say were blocked. I'm not saying you're lying, and I acknowledge that I could be wrong. But people sometimes slant descriptions to suit their biases, and I'm genuinely curious as to whether you're doing this. I notice that you refer to their actions as "deletion". Did they move that material to the talk page, complete with diffs to show others where it was in the article, and work to fix the article themselves, as I've done with articles? Omitting this detail when calling my activities "deletion" may cause a reader to incorrectly understand that I've absolutely removed information entirely from the article without any means or avenue for its restoration, which is not the most accurate or honest phrasing, IMO. Nightscream (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: I do not propose to spend my time arguing the point. Different administrators interpret the greyer areas of editing in different ways (and there are hundreds of admins - and they usually support one another once someone makes a decision).

One thing that you definitely did not do is to adhere to WP:BRD (Bold - Revert - Discuss). Once you had deleted half the article (the 'B' part) and it was reverted back (the 'R' part), it was incumbent upon you to not delete it again but to initiate a discussion on the talk page (the 'D' part) and seek that all important consensus. Just adding a post stating that you have deleted material is not really starting a discussion (and it wasn't after the 'R' anyway). I note that the thread has extended somewhat, and the consensus would appear to be against against you with some supporting my point above. I note that you have continued in your quest despite that consensus and this now places your actions firmly in the category of disruptive editing (which includes editing against consensus) and edit warring (you are currently at 3RR - one more is block territory). I should point out that three people reverting you also constitutes a consensus. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be to your credit to revert your deletions in view of that discussion. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022 - 2

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WP:ANI. 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. You deliberately changed the template headers with a provocative message. Madame Necker (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madame Necker: Try to get your facts straight before you post crap. My edit has not been reverted. It was entirely factual. Someone else changed the header to something that might be construed as provocative, but I note you have not complained to that editor. What he said would appear to be true. An administrator then restored my edit, though it has since been changed again. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to User talk:Nightscream, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Please do not post nonsense to my talk page. My edits have not been reverted and are still there. 86.181.0.154 (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of stations in London fare zone 2. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: How is it 'novel synthesis' to read a map? The grey area marked "2" is zone 2. Anything entirely within that single area is a single zone journey. Any simpleton looking at the map can see that the entire journey that I described is entirely within that single zone 2. It is thus a single zone journey. Which particular aspect of this rather simple concept, which is clearly illustrated on the map, are you having difficulty understanding? 86.181.0.154 (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the map, there is no text whatsoever to support any of these claims:

the longest journey that it is possible to make on London's transport network while remaining entirely with a single zone
costing currently £1.60
It is necessary to make a change of journey tap in at Clapham junction otherwise the barriers automatically assume you made the shorter journey by changing at Canonbury
consequently costs twice as much at £3.20

Accordingly:

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. and if you make comments like this again, that would be an actionable WP:NPA violation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2022 (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.