Jump to content

User talk:Ash.david

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ash.david (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 6 January 2024 (→‎Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Adding uncited statements

You have repeatedly added a sentence to the article Fraser Island. Your addition may be factually correct (or not), however you need to add a citation to support your claim. Park3r (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park3r Respectfully, you have repeatedly removed my sentence to the article Fraser Island. The name change happened within the last couple of months. People still refer to it as Fraser Island whether it is its official name or not. This will happen for the good part of several years. The evidence of proof is on you to show that this isn't the case. Please do not delete my comment. I will only add it back. Ash.david (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove it the second time, another editor did. Also, if you did what you're threatening to do (repeatedly add something back) is called Wikipedia:Edit warring and likely to lead to sanctions. Park3r (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Park3r, respectfully, read your own source. "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism.". I have made my edit in good faith. The REMOVAL of it, however, is edit warring and can lead to sanctions - it's also intellectually dishonest. Ash.david (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your most recent addition of this material. As @Park3r states, Wikipedia has a verifiability policy, and information in articles must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Your statement that "The evidence of proof is on [Park3r] to show that this isn't the case" is entirely false; per the verifiability policy, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (bolded in original). You are adding material to the article, and so you must demonstrate how this can be verified in reliable sources. As for the edit warring policy, the section you quote specifically states that "insertion or removal of material" is not vandalism. Not only removal, "insertion or removal". As you are inserting material, repeatedly restoring it is edit warring. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tol, instead of removing factually correct information (which is intellectually dishonest) please allow me to update my statement with sources in due course. Leave it be please. Thank you. Ash.david (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied in the discussion that you opened on my talk page. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is now sourced. You can do us all a massive favour and not delete factually correct information, otherwise you're being disruptive and not contributing positively to the page. My discussion with you is now closed. Good day. Ash.david (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ash.david reported by User:Tol (Result: ). Thank you. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is factually correct. Let me know when you don't want to spout disinformation. Ash.david (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My statement was factually correct and supported by websites. Let me know when you don't want to spout disinformation. Ash.david (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]