User talk:75.177.79.101

United Artists
Hi, I just responded to your comment at Talk:United Artists. Thanks! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Inflammatory edit summaries
I can appreciate your frustration in having what you think of as reasonable changes reverted, but your edit summary when you removed quite justifiable warnings placed here is also inflammatory. Please do not do it again! I hope you can appreciate that in a climate of vandalism from anonymous users, repeated re-insertion of unsourced additions to an article that constitute a major change are not tolerated on wikipedia, and it is reasonable not to tolerate them if we are serious about building an encyclopedia which uses reliable sources and critical evaluation of them to arrive at a consensus view as the basis for writing articles. I'm surprised you didn't realise this, as a cursory glance at how contentious information is handled will show the demand for reliable sources at work. Thank you. DDStretch   (talk)  04:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your message. I had thought the matter closed - I doubt Meter will bother looking at my edit summary on my talk page, as he doesn't seem interested in any kind of help and was, at the very least, very brisk with me when I tried to communicate with him. I was simply trying to understand, and to let Meter know my frustrations.


 * There is, surely, quite the difference between my edit and an edit made here. Yet we both received the exact same message with the same accusations.


 * I had written more to Meter, but it was lost due to an edit conflict. I hope that someone, some time, takes a look at the situation because, while you say that Wikipedia doesn't tolerate certain things I, as an editor, also do not tolerate certain attitudes.


 * I am blown away by the brick wall I have been presented with when trying to improve an article, though I have had more pleasant exchanges thankfully.


 * I had not considered that my edit would be contentious (and nobody bothered to start a discussion to tell me why they thought it was) - particularly as what I had added were known historical facts as presented by Wikipedia itself. See Terminology of the British Isles for one example, which proves that the equivalent of "British" existed long before the equivalent of "English" in the island.


 * I'm aware that Wikpedia is not a source, but I had considered it precedent.


 * If I could take back my edit summary, I would. I seriously do not want to hear about the bizarre exchanges I had had with Meter again. For me, the matter is dropped and in the past. I do consider the comment "not interested" in certain other edit summary to also be inflammatory, by the way.


 * With the knowledge that a user can simply delete other messages from their talk page if they don't like them, I will be making copies of my comments on my IP's talk page for my own reference in the future. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)