User talk:98.111.137.107

January 2018
Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Wing Bowl seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   23:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Wing Bowl shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project which means when you're bold and make a change to an article that is subsequently reverted by another editor, the next thing to do is to start a discussion on the article's talk page to see if you can establish a consensus for it's inclusion. As pointed out above by, Wikipedia articles are intended to be written in a neutral manner which reflects what independent reliable sources are saying. The content you added might indeed belong in the article, but it's best to be a little cautious here and make sure it's not given undue emphasis. Wikipedia articles are not intended to right great wrongs; this doesn't mean that only positive content can be included, but it does mean we have to be a little careful when it comes to negative content. Propose the addition on the article's talk page, and see what others think. If there's a consensus to add it, it will be added; if not, then engaging in edit warring is not the way to have this content added to the article, and an administrator will be asked to intervene if you continue to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No personal attacks please
Hello, I'm Marchjuly. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wing Bowl that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This edit sum was uncalled for. Casting aspersions on other editors who disagree with you is not how you establish a consensus. Moreover, you've got things backwards; You added content (even sourced content) and it was removed by another editor; the content is contentious, so now it is up to you to establish a consensus for its inclusion. All you need to do is start a talk page discussion and propose the addition; others will respond and either say it should be there or it should n't . I do advise, however, that you focus on how the content complies with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:NEWSBLOG) and refrain from accusing other s who you might disagree with you of being mysoginist, etc. That's you r 're best way forward here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to clarify meaning. Revised content underlined and struckthrough. -- 01:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)]

The onus is on you to build a consensus on why it shouldn't be on the page. I've provided sourced material. If you'd like to take the time to edit the section while attempting to maintain neutrality you are free to do so. However, contending that this should not be a section on the page will need consensus and reasoned support, as there is sufficient support for its being there shown in the references.


 * Please read WP:BURDEN - you are obligated to obtain consensus for changes on Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Every addition to an article with barely any views requires consensus? I don't think so. Content would move at a snails pace. I provided citations, and there are plenty of them. If you think it is not justified to be added, you would need to provide citations that prove it irrelevant or false.
 * That's not how consensus works; see WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is not determined based on whether the info is sourced or not; rather, what is telling you is correct. Consensus is determined by discussion between editors, regardless of whether it is sourced or not. You cannot call something a "consensus" simply because the content is sourced. If something you added is contested, you are encouraged to start a talk page discussion and get an actual consensus. End of story. Please stop edit warring or you could be blocked for edit warring.  Sky  Warrior  01:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please also review Wikipedia's policy on consensus (in addition to the pages others have linked you above). If you add content and nobody disagrees, reverts, or challenges it - then consensus is assumed until this happens. When it does, it's up to all parties involved to discuss and resolve any disagreements. As stated above, the burden is on the person adding content to satisfy and verify that there's consensus to do so (if disagreement has been expressed). I'm available should you have any questions, but I encourage you to properly discuss the dispute.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The problem with that is there were no reasons for removing the content in the first place. I agree with your edit, Oshwah, which is why i further revised my next addition. However, my next addition was removed without any reason for removing it. I have provided several reasons for it belonging on the page. Without a valid reason for removing it, I'm not sure why we are then going on to the next step of discussing on the talk page to reach a consensus. As of now, we haven't even had a legitimate disagreement. Someone just wants to remove a section from the page without a single reason for doing so.


 * Attacking other editors who have the temerity to disagree with you is not a productive way to convince them that your edits are valuable. You need to show that any edit is a significant contribution to the encyclopedia article that does not give undue emphasis on a single aspect of the subject, and that it reflects a proportional discussion on the subject in accordance with its coverage in major mainstream media and academic examination. Arriving with a chip on your shoulder doesn't advance the discussion, nor does declaring other editors' objections invalid and them edit-warring to include an edit that has been contested, whether you think there are grounds for that objection or not.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Good points. My comment did state that this topic has received a lot of mainstream coverage, which was inadequately represented in the current version of the article. He dismissed that outright without explanation, stating that I needed to take it up in the Talk page. The Talk page of the article is infrequently updated, maybe once every few years. Therefore, this means reasonably, he dismissed the addition outright without explanation, as reaching consensus via that talk page is not realistic in a reasonable amount of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.137.107 (talk • contribs)


 * Yet that is how content is worked out - through discussion on talkpages, prolonged discussion if necessary. You started editing two hours ago - it takes days or weeks to come to consensus even on uncontroversial subjects. It is not up to you to declare consensus and proceed in the face of objections, and certainly not precipitately.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Consensus through editing is a core component in the instructional Wikipedia guide you linked to earlier. I'd imagine that's even more important when there is barren talk page. In that situation, I'd imagine at least a reasonable objection should be stated for refusing the addition of a section.
 * Just want to clarify, I did not dismiss[ed] the addition outright without explanation, so I wish you would stop claiming such a thing because doing so implies (at least to me) some sort of vandalism on my part. My first edit sum can be seen here and there are two clear reasons (WP:RGW and WP:UNDUE) given in it and a request that you discuss things on the article talk page. My second edit sum was similar. I also posted a more detailed explanation of my reasons above in . I'm perfectly happy and willing to discuss this on the article's talk page, which is how it works on Wikipedia. The content was also subsequently removed by, but you edit warred to re-add it. I'm also perfectly happy to go with whatever consensus that discussion may lead to. I always try to be WP:HERE and assume WP:AGF by keeping my comments focused on relevant content and not on other editors; it would be helpful if you tried a bit harder to do the same. The inappropriate edit sums you left have been redacted by an administrator; this should be a sign that such comments are not going to be tolerated. I've asked others at the relevant WikiProjects and relative noticeboards to look at the content you're proposing and provide feedback. This may take some time, but there are no real deadlines on Wikipedia. Please be patient and let the discussion run its course. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you agree not to edit war on the article and to not edit it until a consensus is reached, I'll unblock you. What do you say? Promise? :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The only viable source of consensus on the article at hand is through edits. The talk page is updated once every few years. I appreciate the sentiment, but I'll probably try to add some form of the section again when I can. If Marchjuly feels like it needs to be edited in any way, I am definitely open to that. I'm not a professional writer, but I am from the Philadelphia area and have read numerous articles in the media about the sexism and misogyny that happens in Wing Bowl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.137.107 (talk • contribs)


 * That doesn't read as a pledge to seek consensus - that's a promise to push through your edits without attempting discussion on the talkpage. "The only viable source of consensus on the article at hand is through edits" is not how things get done on Wikipedia - that's ediit-warring.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Wing Bowl. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at Wing Bowl. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 * See my offer above - if you promise not to continue edit warring on the article and discuss the dispute first, I'll unblock you so that you can discuss the dispute on the article's talk page. Just respond and let me know that you agree, and I'll remove your block.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   02:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)