User talk:72.141.9.158

Discretionary Alerts
If you're going to be editing in the topic area of American Politics (post-1932), then you need to know this;

This is not a suggestion that you have been disruptive, although you have reverted several editors to restore your edits to the article Swing state, but simply a formal alert that the topic area is under Discretionary Sanctions, and is subject to special scrutiny by administrators. Please be certain that your edits to that topic area fulfill our policy requirements, as we have discussed on my talk page.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Beyond My Ken, thank you very much for the notice. I appreciate it. I will definitely take the time to review this information and the page's contents carefully. I just wanted to ensure that nothing wrong had happened, or that I had broken any rules. If you do feel that way, please tell me explicitly and state the reason why. As you mentioned, you have talked about this on your "talk page" and raised legitimate concerns, but like I said I don't see how my edits were disruptive or in any way didn't follow the many guidelines that you mentioned: no original research, neutrality, using reliable sources, verifiability, edit warring, etc. As you noted, I reverted the edits from other users, including Islanders41, MarnetteD, Onel5969 and yourself, because I didn't feel that the reasons noted in the descriptions had applied. I believed that the content that I added was important and helpful, and that it wasn't constructive to revert them, although I invited the users to comment on, undo, or explain their revisions, and stopped editing it after your request to discuss it on your talk page. For example, one your edit summaries was simply "Undid revision 762125650 by 72.141.9.158 (talk) unsourced" and your other on that page was "unsourced analysis" even though I'm pretty sure that everything was sourced properly. I also didn't receive a reply at their talk pages although I'm admittedly inexperienced with those notifications, and the new addition was somehow removed on the latter page. Likewise, if you have been concerned about that, please tell me as well. Beyond that, I completely understand your message that their was no problem, and it was a relief to know that. But I acknowledge that you are scrutinizing my edits and helping me with the system, and I appreciate that. If I ever make a mistake, break a rule, or incorrectly cross any boundaries, I would definitely be very grateful if you draw my attention to the mis-steps and assist in fixing them, as I am aware that my best contributions to Wikipedia can occur when I abide by the community standards, genuinely want to help, and break all of the rules. Thank you again, and best wishes. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Previous discussions on swing state
@BeyondMyKen: Please, don't get mad. I still do not understand your concerns. You keep saying that there are no citations on the page, but that doesn't seem to be true. Let me clarify what happened.

On January 17: I added one paragraph to the page swing state. It had three sources.

On January 22: You reverted the edit because it wasn't sourced enough.

On January 26: I added two paragraphs. They had a total of thirteen sources.

On January 26 (same day): I saw your edits to the page, and I offered to fix it. I added ten sources to that first paragraph.

However, you said that there weren't enough sources, that it couldn't be verified, and that it contained original research. I do not understand that at all.

Please make it clear what your concerns are, whether it's the quality of my sources, their number, their accuracy, or anything else. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 03:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive edits
@Beyond My Ken: I will tell you right now very politely, please stop deleting my posts and inquiries on your talk page. You are not responding to my messages. You have kept on insisting for nearly a week (and about 2 weeks now) that you reverted multiple edits of mine at the page swing state because there was no source. I actually had multiple sources for each of my edits, but you just cleared all of my comments on that topic from this page. You can see what actually happened, on the log at my talk page. And stop repetitively reverting my edits without giving any edit summary, as you did a few minutes ago at the page swing state. This is my last warning to stop doing this, as it is not helpful. Otherwise, I will report you. I would like to find a solution that fits you as well as me. Please respond if you are interested in actually solving it. Otherwise, stop reverting my edits and deleting my comments for no reason. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Original discussions from Beyond My Ken's talk page
The following section has been copied from Beyond My Ken's talk page from the user, for an arbitration copy. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently reverted edits at User talk:72.141.9.158
The below was originally posted on my talk page, and I would like a response. Thank you very much:
 * Please be aware that the Wikipedia convention is that if you erase a comment from your talk page (and incidentally, as an IP editor, this is not your talk page - you do not have the same control over it an editor with an account has over theirs), it means that you've read the comment and acknowledge receiving it. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken Yes, I have received it. I don't know which parts of my edits you think were opinionated, or why you deleted the whole content that I had added, but I think there were quite some substantive and substantiated information, and facts, in there. I understand that they may not reflect your views, and I definitely appreciate your challenging and replacing them. However, I don't see why it was necessary to remove the whole thing, rather than changing it and making it better. I won't pick over it, though. I'll message you on your talk page, no need to reply. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Also, if you feel that I violated any rules or policy, please kindly inform me and I'd be happy to add it back. I'm just not particularly sure about the specific details regarding the concerns that you had raised. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And thanks for catching me to that exception. I appreciate your dedication, and I would like to know how to improve the information that I had included. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My initial comment to you, the one you immediately deleted about your additions to the article Toplessness, was quite clear: "On Wikipedia, we don't publish the personal opinions of our editors - that's called original research and a violation of the neutral point of view. Any opinions or analysis must come from people with expertise in the subject, and therefore must be accompanied by citations from reliable sources which support the views presented. Please do not restore the material you added to Toplessness, which I reverted, unless you have such citations to support it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)" You provided no sources at all for the several paragraphs of statements you added.  That makes them your opinions, until they are sourced by citations from reliable sources.  I've noticed now that you've done this same thing in some of your other contributions, so this is something you need to correct in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry about the late reply, and thank you for your response and advice. I understand that there was have been some content which I shouldn't have included, I can make that better in the future. However, much of it is, in my opinion, valuable stuff and if I would like to see some of it put back on, I can message you and let you know, check it over and review it first, if I feel that some would help. And do you think there was nothing worth keeping, as from what I can see, only a part of it was opinion (which I will correct and add citations for if necessary) and I have indeed often included citations. Also, I do appreciate that you have remade it for this page, and I can act to not delete the posts in the future. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you're not really getting it. The issue is not whether the information is "valuable" or "important", or even, actually if it's true or not, the issue is that we (the world at large) don't know you from a hole in the ground, don't know if you're an expert in the subject or simply reporting your observations without any expertise in the subject.  That's because we're all either anonymous or pseudonymous, and even if we use our own names, there's no guarantee that is who we actually are.  Because of all that, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." That's an excerpt from WP:Verifiability, one of our most basic policies.  Unless and until information is supported by a citation from a WP:reliable source, it's merely one person's observations, or opinions, or unverified information, and that is why the entirety of your edit was removed, because you did not provide any sourcing whatsoever, and why it will be removed again until you can back it up with sources that are acceptable to us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply, BeyondMyKen. There is no need for such accusations, I understand your concerns. I wanted to add it back because I wanted to HELP, not to break rules. I received your message, and WILL add sources and citations if and when I may decide to re-include it, as I never did re-add it, because of course I wanted to make sure that you agreed first. I do add the same sources to these edits, and will continue to do so. For the time being, if it is not in your interest, then I won't return them. But I don't see any reason to revert these and other new edits. Thank you for the consideration. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello BeyondMyKen, why did you remove the edit at Swing state, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swing_state&type=revision&diff=762144399&oldid=762125650? You only said it was "unsourced" but from what I know, everything was sourced, and I had already addressed the issue before, in a post on that page. Every single single, and clause and phrase that I added, had a source. Please stop reverting my edits unless you have a genuine reason to do so, as arguably with my first one, which, unlike your claims, I haven't re-instated. Thank you for the consideration. If you have no objections, I will add it back. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have the same objections that the other two editors who removed it had: that it is unsourced WP:OR. What you are dooing is called edit warring, and it is not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, I just saw your message, and I added one edit just now. But can you tell me where you see that with? I'm pretty sure I added citations for EVERYTHING in there. Please tell me if and where I didn't, and I'd be happy to fix that. I didn't want to "edit-war" with any editor, only to improve it and get your permission first. None of the others have replied at the article. I just don't see where you find that "original research" and none of the other contributors have specified it, not that I would disagree with their qualifications. But since you have a problem with it, I'll stop adding any more, but I'd like to know what it is that you specifically object to. Thank you very much. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need my "permission" to make edits, you simply have to follow our policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but you (and others) opposed my edits, and I don't understand why. So I don't understand why you'd think that either my edits or the content were a violation of policy. I understand that the material that I add must be verifiable, must have sources, can't be original, etc. But I don't understand how the information that I added didn't conform to those rules. So please clarify the reasons for your disapproval, or I will continue to not understand or misunderstand. Regards. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, and I will say only once more, you added several paragraphs worth of information without a single citation, and that is why it was removed. The reasons for its removal are all given quite clearly above. Please don't respond, as I will take any response as being deliberate trolling on your part, and your response will be deleted unread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Early blanking and removal of content
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Swing state, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. I removed one piece of content that was irrelevant to the page. I explained it quite clearly in the edit summary (moved irrelevant section about swing states to page Electoral College). If you disagree with the edit, please tell me. I had copied the content, word-for-word, and placed it instead in the important page. Please respond to indicate that you have received this message and that you have acknowledged the correction. If you don't reply, I'll assume that you agree with my changes and will add it back without your approval. Thank you very much. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Question for administrator
My message at Beyond My Ken's talk page has been consistently reverted, for no reason. There was a question that I had asked, which was undone by three different editors, none of whom included an edit summary. I see no reason for them to delete it before even its owner has presumably read it, and I don't understand why I'm not allowed to add it back in. Also, the user deleted one of my comments a few days ago, as well as a follow-up the next day. I have included the message on my talk page. Please look into this situation and re-post my comment. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have also changed my edits to the page swing state, which I have explained extensively, both on this page and in my edit summaries. They haven't replied to my requests at their talk pages, but continue to undo my edits. As noted above, some of my comments have also been deleted. Additionally, please restore my edits at the page swing state which were reached through the construction of these discussions.
 * I'm impartial in regards to the larger issue, and for the record I do not wish to participate any further than this comment. I am an entirely neutral party - I came upon this request via the Admin Dashboard. It looks like Beyond My Ken has made it extremely clear that he does not wish to interact with you on his Talk page or via any pings/notifications to him from you. Leave him alone. Stop trying to talk to him. He doesn't want to talk to you. You don't have an inherent right to demand an response from him, so stop trying to get one. In regards to the reversions of your edits, it appears that you have been told time and time again to discuss large edits on these kinds of high-traffic pages before implementing them, and you are consistently refusing to do so. Comments on your dispute resolution request indicate you are editing without consensus. I will not restore your edits and I doubt anyone else will. Let the thing drop, man, or someone is going to wind up blocking you. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, I understand that. I wasn't trying to get a response from Beyond My Ken, I just wanted to know why he reverted my edits (which he has made clear since then, for the record). That was simply because I didn't understand the reason for the constant reverting, which was why I had wanted to add it back. But I don't think it's entirely fair that any such edit can be made without at least my knowledge (which, again, isn't the case right here). Finally, I have been told only by those editors, and only yesterday, do discuss them (which I have done). I see that you do not wish to comment on this further, and I fully respect that. I only leave this message to clear the confusion. Thank you for the help. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Beyond My Ken
I'll tell you now. There was no ownership of the article on my part. Tell me why the information on the page had been deleted, please. I would like to remove it, because it doesn't pertain to the article and is already also on the page for the Electoral College, where it does belong and where it can't be splintered. Also, my messages to you on your talk page keeps getting deleted, so I just hope it won't do so here. Please check its history. Thank you for the help. I will check back. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, and if you reach a WP:CONSENSUS with other editors that the information should be removed, then you can proceed.  Otherwise, you cannot.  Also, you moved material from one article to another without using the "copied" template, which, for copyright reasons, is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the policy, if there is no opposition to my edits, I can make them unilaterally. However, I will not add my material back in, if you are opposed to it. However, please tell me why that is the case, please. I don't understand why you (or much less anyone else) were opposed to the edit, in and of itself. Tell me about that, please. I have told you that I moved it because I thought that it would be better off on the actual page about the topic, rather than the page swing state, which was irrelevant to the topic of the section. I will look into the use of the template, but I can't seem to find it. Can you add a link, please? Thank you very much. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of dispute at this page
Please see the page above for my review. Alternatively, reply here with your intentions. I am asking:

1. Why was my comment at Beyond My Ken's talk page reverted, a few days ago?

2. Why was the content that I deleted at the page swing state re-added? I'm assuming there was a misunderstanding about where it went, but that doesn't seem to be the case (see above for details).

3. Why were my edits to the first page today reverted? I opened a new section, but it was reverted three times, by three contributors.

Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't trying to call you out, I just want to know what happened, and why my contributions to this page, and others, were undone. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at my talk page
Users involved Dispute overview

My edits at swing state and a user's talk page have been consistently reverted, for no reason. Many users deleted my edit at the first page with no relevant edit summaries, and many different users reverted my edits at the latter. No administrator has yet replied to my request. As none of the users involved have replied on my talk page, or theirs, where necessary, I have been unable to contact them further over the last few days. I would like to add my comments and edits back, but it keeps getting reverted and my attempts to contact them have been in vain. Please see my talk page for the actual discussion and further details.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Messaging them on their talk page, on my talk page, alerting an administrator (although that was only today), making my intentions clear in further edits. However, they have not responded but continue to revert my edits.

How do you think we can help?

Notify the editors involved and add my information back in, as long as they have no valid and legitimate objections. If that's the case, I would be happy to discuss it with them, but only if they will actually engage with me.

Hello
I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that you are banned from posting comments on my talk page, unless, of course, you are  required to  by Wikipedia  policy . If you are required to post a notice on my talk page, please clearly indicate in the edit summary what policy you are doing so under. Any other posted comments will be deleted without being read. Please note that this ban also applies to pinging me. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What "vague" policies of yours are you referring to? I have followed every policy that I know of, and every one that you have brought up, as well as those that you have wilfully ignored. I have posted it on the talk page, and will continue to do so. But if you delete my messages, ignore my requests, but at the same time revert my edits without adding an explanation and continue to do so, on repeat, then I cannot comply with your orders. Thank you for the information. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Return to notices from other users
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Swing state. ERK talk 01:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, I did not. As noted, it's not possible to publish these updates without notifying the user. Please see the relevant discussion, above. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to prevent potential conflicts with other editors and possible future reverts on your edits, I suggest you discuss any potential changes that involve such a large removal of content on the article's talk page. Input from other editors should be considered before such large changes are made. -- ERK talk 01:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Response for ERK
I did explain it quite clearly in my edit summary: I moved it to the article for the Electoral College, because it wasn't pertinent to the page or its contents. Please reply, or I will add it back. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems fair. Would you mind to participate? Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Removing section about Electoral College
Should I remove the section about the Electoral College, which is already repeated, word for word, at its own article? It doesn't seem relevant to the topic of swing states on this page. Also, if it is kept here, I would like to request commentary on the other side. Otherwise, it will be taken as biased, and removed. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since that might come about as its own topic, I guess we won't add it. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This is it
The very last time I will try to explain anything to you. The removal of material from Swing state has now been reverted by multiple editors. That means that they do not agree with your moving of the material to the Electoral college (United States) article (where in any case it was reverted because it duplicated material already in that article). Now that your edit(s) have been challenged, you must get a WP:CONSENSUS before restoring those changes to the article. The only way to get a consensus is not by leaving messages on the talk pages of the editors who reverted you, or by filing a dispute resolution case, but by discussing the reasons for your changes on the article's talk page. If the majority of editors there agree with you, then you have a consensus, and you can restore your changes. If they do not, then there is no consensus and you must stop. Again, this is the only way to get your changes into the article, as they have been rejected now numerous times. You don't need my "permission" to make the changes, or the permission of any one editor, you need a consensus . I hope that is clear - you have one thing to do, and one thing only: ' discuss your changes on the article's talk page. ' All this other stuff you're doing is worthless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry for failing to understand that at an earlier time. I have already started the discussion. I appreciate that you have made it clear to me. However, if you do revert any more of my edits, please fully and clearly tell me why, on my talk page, the article's, or simply in the edit summary. And if I disagree, I'd like to be able to at least contact you. Again, thank you. I understand, and have followed these necessary steps. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I am not taking any extraordinary steps for your benefit. I will endeavor to make the reason for my edit clear in the edit summary, but that is it, as I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to understand things even when they are clearly explained to you.  And here's another point do not remove that material again unless and until there is a consensus to do so.  Removing it again will be a violation of the edit warring policy, and you will be reported for it, and probably blocked.  Understand that, unlike some other editors, I almost never make use of the ability to report edit warring, but your behavior has been atrocious, barely distinguishable from a troll, so I will not hesitate to report you this time, if another editor doesn't beat me to it.  Just don't do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And no, do not contact me. I will participate on the article talk page, but I have absolutely no interest in talking to you outside of that. You have been, and remain, banned from posting on my talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm doing, in case you haven't seen. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, I'm Excirial. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to United States presidential election, 2016— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the notice. As noted, I had already reverted my edit. I mistakenly removed the table by using the visual editor, which I wasn't familiar with, to add a note, here. Sorry for the interference. It is back now. Just wanted to be letting you know. Thank you, again. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)