User talk:174.208.230.244

TASIS Switzerland
Hi there, I would like to state unequivocally I have no relationship with the subject article. I believe you assumed bad faith (In violation of this WP) reverted ALL of the edits in question and automatically assumed there is a conflict of relationship when there is none and you have not presented evidence to the contrary. Instead of focusing on certain edits which you feel could be improved upon, you have made a blanket determination that they are all not reliable. Every single edit I made was backed up by a reliable secondary source independent of the subject matter. If you have concerns with a particular statement in the article please use this talk space to address them, or refer to the talk page of the article in question. If you have concerns about a conflict of interest, which again, I maintain are unfounded, but you have every right to disagree of course, then I suggest you take it to the appropriate channels on here. I have undone your reversions because I feel your blanket unsupported assumption that my additions, all of which were based on reliable secondary sources, independent from the subject, is not sufficient cause to remove them when they provide informational value per Wikipedia guidelines and in fact address some of the issues that were highlighted on this page (regarding sourcing).

As a compromise, I suggest you highlight which additions and sources that I added that you find unreliable or questionable, then we can discuss either here or on the article talk page and make the necessary modifications. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, with all due respect, your request that I "suggest changes on the Talk Page" before making any edits is not how Wikipedia works. Wickster12345 (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said on the TASIS Switzerland page:
 * Let me elaborate:
 * "I believe the reversion of my contributions under the claim of restoring a "consensus version" warrants further discussion.
 * Firstly, it's crucial to clarify the nature of the edits in question. These were not alterations to existing content where consensus might have previously been established. Instead, they constituted new additions to the article, introducing previously unmentioned subject matter supported by reliable sources.
 * In such cases, the concept of a "consensus version" becomes somewhat irrelevant. Consensus implies a general agreement among editors regarding specific content. When entirely new information is added, there hasn't been an opportunity for such consensus to form.
 * Several Wikipedia policies and guidelines support this perspective:
 * WP:BOLD: Encourages editors to be bold in updating pages. New additions, especially when well-sourced, are generally seen as positive contributions unless they violate other policies.
 * WP:PRESERVE: Emphasizes the importance of preserving information. Reverting well-sourced additions goes against this principle.
 * WP:BRD: (Bold, Revert, Discuss) outlines a process for handling disagreements. While you were correct in reverting, the next step should be discussion, not simply reverting to a non-existent "consensus."
 * Furthermore, assuming a conflict of interest (COI) solely based on adding new content is premature. While COI is a valid concern, it's important to differentiate between promotional editing and good-faith contributions. The edits in question were made with the intent of expanding the article's scope and providing comprehensive information, adhering to Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability.
 * I invite you to review the specific content added. If you have any concerns about the sources' reliability or the neutrality of the additions, let's discuss them HERE. Reverting without a constructive dialogue hinders collaborative editing and the improvement of Wikipedia."
 * Wickster12345 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)