User talk:CharlesShirley/Archives/2019/August

Disambiguation link notification for June 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephanie Grisham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Stephanie_Grisham check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Stephanie_Grisham?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

August 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Death of a Nation (2018 film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:27, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

The use of the phrase "booby prize in the article Death of a Nation (2018 film) by editor Etzedek24, CharlesShirley response

 * This warning is false. The Etzedek24 simply did not like my edits. It is as simple as that.  He/she is using this warning to attempt to intimidate me as an editor.  He did not provided on this page an example of the disruptive editing because no such edit exists.  If he/she can't provide an example of disruptive editing then the odds are quite high that there is no disruptive editing.--CharlesShirley (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Disruptive editing includes tendentious editing, which Wikipedia describes as an editor "editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors." You refuse to listen to the consensus of editors on the page and simply put your changes in again. You have not addressed the material itself, the only discussion you've put in has been to complain about me (rightfully) warning you about disruptive editing. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Editor CharlesShirley merely asked for a reliable source be provided to use the phrase "booby prize"

 * Oh, good grief. I did respond with substance to your edits. You keep putting the phrase "booby prize" in the article without providing a reliable source to support its inclusion.  You need to review what a reliable source is: Reliable sources.  You haven't provided one.  It is merely your opinion. That's it. Please provide a reliable source.--CharlesShirley (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not my insertion, which you don't seem to understand. I'm reverting your edits because they don't reflect consensus. Just read the talk page discussion, for jeez sake. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 18:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We should assume good faith and not immediately scream POV-pushing and "disruptive editing"

 * Ok, I get it. BUT you did ignore good faith.  I only removed the phrase "booby prize" because it is a word that is not in the reliable source.  It was not disruptive editing.  Disruptive editing is NOT simply what you don't like.  I simply removed the phrase and asked for a reliable source.  It was a good faith edit and you should have treated it as such.--CharlesShirley (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Etzedek24: You need to Assume good faith. Please review the policy and try to follow it going forward.--CharlesShirley (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is important to point out that the editor Etzedek24 thinks it is quite proper to immediately claim that someone is engaging in "disruptive editing" and "POV-pushing" when that person (me) simply asked for a reliable source to support the clumsy, ugly, non-encyclopedic phrase "booby prize". I think immediately screaming "disruptive editing" and "POV-pushing" is coming down like a ton of bricks.  However, Etzedek24 has not found it appropriate when other editors have come down on him like a ton of bricks.  I direct the reader of this discussion of Etzedek24's warning to the date of June 30, 2019 when Etzedek24 said on his talk page: "My apologies. I didn't know the two were linked. I reverted it because it was almost identical to something the editor posted on the talk page. No need to be snippy. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)" You can review that edit yourself here: Editor Etzedek24 telling another editor not to be snippy and not to come down like a ton of bricks --CharlesShirley (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC){

This is all absolutely ridiculous. It does not matter what YOU asked of me. Now you are pulling stuff completely unrelated to this content dispute. Your talk page is not a court where other editors will applaud you for posting "evidence" against me. This is the bottom line: You reinserted material that was against page consensus (at the time) when you saw quite plainly that other editors disagreed. That is quite literally in the first example of what disruptive editing is. You have spent 90% of your time complaining about me posting a message to your talk page and 10% actually engaging in discussion on the talk page. In the entire thread only one of your comments actually addressed the material that you were upset about. The phrase has now been removed, and there is no need for this silly campaign of self-defense. For God's sake, drop the stick. And maybe read WP:AAGF. I know ArbCom has warned you about civility so just ponder that. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What you need to ponder is to assume good faith. You didn't. You were wrong.--CharlesShirley (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2019 (UTC)