User talk:176.205.199.54

September 2023
Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you recently removed content from Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I have explained the reason adequately. Seeing how fast this part has been restored, and also information on your profile, sadly only proves my point. The page about Queen Charlotte already has many links about her history that prove that part to be invalid and made up. Simply because someone would like a lady of German ancestry to be black, doesn't mean she was. It's not historically possible. 176.205.199.54 (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not wholly sure what you mean by "how fast this part was restored" or "information on your profile"; I do anti-vandalism work on Wikipedia, so naturally when I see an IP address removing thousands of bytes from a page, I look into it. The article is deeply sourced; it says that the theory is "popular among the general public" but "largely denounced by most scholar". It is not an endorsement of the hypothesis, it's a description of both sides of an ongoing debate. Given that, your edit summary was nowhere near sufficient justification for blanking out the whole section. I'm not even sure why you object so much, given it basically endorses your point of view anyway, but if you still believe the section deserves to be wholly removed, take the discussion to the article's talk page. Wikipedia works by consensus, AntiDionysius (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No wonder Wikipedia is never considered valid source of information if you would like to keep lies posted simply because it is "discussion" and only online at that. Every knowledgeable scholar can confirm it's not true and yet you decide to keep it here for a simple reason - doubt of gullible people. I understand why you want to keep this "highly sourced" part here and what it will do in future. Do what you wish, ruin our history to the point of no return. Might as well edit other parts that are on the same page, confirming it's just a made up story. 176.205.199.54 (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for your input AntiDionysius (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)