User talk:98.220.157.243

May 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Mixon. PM800 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Joe Mixon has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Joe Mixon was changed by 98.220.157.243 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893339 on 2017-05-24T04:32:29+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.220.157.243 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

On the Joe Mixon wikipedia page I have been accused of vandalism which is incorrect. I am adding facts to the page that give proper context to the incident he had with Amelia Molitor. I am not disputing that Mixon punched/hit Molitor and am not trying to edit that. I am adding facts that put the proper context of him punching her as reported in the media and readily viewed on the surveillance video of the incident. Fact 1 The wikipedia post says that Molitor slapped Mixon which is true, but the use of the word slap has a connotation of nothing serious. The surveillance video shows that Molitor's slap was with force and Mixon said that “it felt like a dude hit me” I cited an Oklahoma newspaper article that quotes him on this. My post was removed. Fact 2 The wikipedia post says that Mixon Lunged at Molitor after she pushed him which is true. But it sounds like he lunged to attack her when in fact he lunged as a warning to her to back off. In the surveillance video Mixon lunges with restraint in the way that primates (all humans are primates) posture as a warning to others to back off. I added that "him lunging at her to say back off" properly illustrates the fact that the lunge was a defensive threat and not an attack. My post was removed. Fact 3 The wikipedia post says that Mixon punched Molitor after she pushed him which is true. It is also true that Mixon's attorney said in statement that Mixon "instinctually defended himself." The surveillance video supports this as immediately after her hitting him Mixon hits her back. I had tried to add "and him reflexively hitting her back in the act of self defense". Under Oklahoma law, Mixon has the opportunity to assert that he was defending himself. In Oklahoma, there is no duty for a person to retreat before defending themselves. My post was removed. Fact 4 The wikipedia post says that Mixon was charge with misdemeanor assault which is true. I tried to add that "Molitor was not charged for assault, even though the surveillance video showed that she pushed and hit him first prior to him punching her." Under Oklahoma law assault is defined as violence against someone. Molitor pushed and hit/slapped Mixon before he responded by punching her. Under the statue she should have been charged with assault. The surveillance video backs this up. My post was removed. If Wikipedia and other sources of news/information refuse to allow facts to be published, then when people see that facts have not been intentionally omitted and they find them at a fake news site, then they will trust the fake news site in the future and ignore legitimate news/information sites.98.220.157.243 (talk) 06:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for adding uncited material. To be unblocked, you need to show that you already cited (with reliable sources) each piece of information you added. For example, in this edit, you state that "the execution appalled many uninformed people" and "Lém had murdered a POW and civilians thus violating the rules of war. He was not marked by any identifiable marker showing that he was a combatant." That's probably true, but I don't see any citation from you showing this. It's your responsibility to provide the citation in all cases. Other edits from you follow a similar pattern, and this is why you were blocked. Yamla (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.220.157.243 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for clarifying the blocking reason. I understand the reason to ensure that personal opinions and lies not be allowed on the site in order for wikipedia to be trusted. First I will discuss the gen loan and Lém posts. The original story that supports these facts, I read them in a parade magazine that came in the Sunday paper in 1983 on the 15th anniversary of the Tet offensive. I have searched the internet for this article but found nothing. The only reference to the article is in the Chicago tribune obituary for Eddie Adams the photograper of the famous photo. It said ""In taking that picture," Adams later told Parade magazine, "I had destroyed [Loan's] life." This references the Parade Article that support my facts. The internet is only as good as what is put on it to be accessed by others. If some truthful article exist and it is not on the Internet it does not mean it is not true. In addition the Wikipedia article on Gen loan stated that "When Lieutenant Colonel Tuan refused to cooperate, Lém killed Tuan, his wife and six children and his 80-year-old mother by cutting their throats. There was only one survivor, a seriously injured 10-year-old boy" This is why I wrote that "Lém had murdered a POW and civilians thus violating the rules of war". I have seen info that supports these facts on blogs on the internet, but I know that blog/forums sites can be subjective and do not always cite sources so they are not worthy of citing even if they restate facts. In reference to me writing "He was not marked by any identifiable marker showing that he was a combatant." one should be able to look at the photo and conclude he was not marking himself as a combatant. He was not in an NVA army uniform, and he did not have an armband identifying him as a combatant (like the french resistance did in WW2). The best source on the details of what occurred prior to the photo is in a PDF written by BAI AN TRAN a former RVN judge. In it he said that: Minutes before he was captured, Bay Lop (Lém) had killed a RVN policeman’s wife and all of his family members including his children. Around 4:30 A.M., Nguyen Van Lem led a sabotage unit along with Viet Cong tanks to attack the Armor Camp in Go Vap. After communist troops took control of the base, Bay Lop arrested Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan with his family and forced him to show them how to drive tanks. When Lieutenant Colonel Tuan refused to cooperate, Bay Lop killed all members of his family including his 80-year-old mother. There was only one survivor, a seriously injured 10-year-old boy. Nguyen Van Lem was captured near a mass grave with 34 innocent civilian bodies. Lem admitted that he was proud to carry out his unit leader’s order to kill these people. Lem was in his shorts and shirt. His arms were tied from the back. The pistol was still in his possession. General Loan executed Nguyen Van Lem on the spot. This is not published in a newspaper or book so I did not cite it, but these are the basic facts that I remember from reading the 1983 parade magazine article. If the 1983 Parade Article was archived on the internet I would have cited it. Second the Joe Mixon posts. I cited the surveillance video to state that Molitor pushed and slapped Mixon before he punched her. One should be able to look at the video and see the sequence of events. It is common knowledge that if someone pushes/hits someone not in the act of self defense than that person can be charged with assault under the law. That is why I added "Molitor was not charged for assault, even though the surveillance video showed that she pushed and hit him first prior to him punching her." The Video is the citation, not an article in a newspaper. When I added "her slapping him so hard that Mixon said that “it felt like a dude hit me”" I cited an article in the The Oklahoman newspaper, but my edit was removed. I edited the wikipedia to say that Mixon "and him reflexively hitting her back in the act of self defense." I did not cite an article but the paragraph that I edited cites the surveillance video that shows that Mixon did exactly what I said. It is common knowledge that if someone hits you first you have a right to self defense. In order to state this fact does one need to cite a news article when the surveillance video and common knowledge support the self defense fact? It is important for wikipedia to provide the proper context in articles. In the Gen Loan case if a person reads about the photo that it was an execution they might assume that an innocent civilian was illegally killed/murdered. With the context that Lem had illegally killed a POW and civilians and was not marked as combatant, a person can conclude that the Summary execution by Gen Loan was legal and proper. In the case of Joe Mixon if a person reads that Mixon punched Molitor they may assume he is the aggressor. With the context that Molitor Pushed and slapped/hit Mixon first, that the slap was so hard that it felt like a a man hit him, that Molitor was not charged with assault even though her actions justify an assault charge against her, that I have no agenda in these matters and am not engaging in a flame war. I am trying to have the proper factual context presented so that a person who reads these articles for the first time receives all the factual information.98.220.157.243 (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yamla, immediately below, cogently describes why this appeal must be declined. I am declining your appeal for the reasons given, there, and there is no need for me to duplicate them. Just Chilling (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have missed the point. For your block to be invalid, you must show how the edits you made were already backed up by citations. What you've said is that you did not provide these mandatory citations. This is not optional. You must provide citations when introducing material of this nature. WP:CITE and WP:RS explain why. I agree that it is important to provide context around the topics you are discussing, but Wikipedia requires citations from reliable sources. Our policy is Verifiability, not truth. If you don't already have a citation from a reliable source, you can not introduce the changes. --Yamla (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Nguyễn Ngọc Loan into Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.220.157.243 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why I should not be blocked,

My edit expands upon the existing paragraph and it already has the verifiable reference.

Original

The statue was pulled down by protestors in 2017 as part of nationwide demonstrations that followed the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia

My Revision

The statue was illegally pulled down by criminals in Aug 2017 during a protest. The Protest was part of nationwide demonstrations that followed the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Eight people were arrested for vandalism and rioting.

This is verifiable in footnote #4 the CNN article that is already posted.

The CNN article says that 8 were arrested for vandalism and rioting

Here is exactly what it says:

Takiya Fatima Thompson, 22, was charged Tuesday with two felonies -- participation in a riot with property damage in excess of $1,500 and inciting others to riot -- and two misdemeanors -- disorderly conduct by injury to a statue and damage to property, the Durham County Sheriff's Office said. She was held on $10,000 bond.

On Wednesday, Dante Emmanuel Strobino, 35, Ngoc Loan Tran, 24, and Peter Gull Gilbert, 39, were arrested on the same charges, the sheriff's office said. Three more alleged participants -- Aaron Alexander Caldwell, Raul Mauro Arce Jimenez and Elena Everett -- were arrested Thursday. They were each charged with one felony -- inciting a riot -- and three misdemeanors -- injury to personal property less than $200, injury to real property and defacing a public monument. Durham County Sheriff Mike Andrews said officers were executing search warrants and reviewing video shot at the scene. The sheriff's office said at least one person was expected to surrender Thursday. Additional arrests are expected.

So 7 plus 1 who later turned themselve in, is 8 people arrested and charged with vandalism and rioting thus making their actions illegal. As they were arrested and charged with videotape evidence confirming their guilt they are legally criminals in the context of this event. Let's look at Websters for a definition.

Websters Definition of criminal 1 :relating to, involving, or being a crime

I have proved that what I posted is verifiable in Reference #4 the CNN article and that the use of the word criminal is correct.

Why can't the arrest of these criminals for their illegal acts not be properly reported in this article?

If I look at the Unite the right rally article it says:

Shortly after the collision, James Alex Fields Jr., a 20-year-old from Ohio who reportedly had expressed sympathy for Nazi Germany during his time as a student at Cooper High School in Union, Kentucky,[122] was arrested.[113][123] He was charged with second-degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failure to stop following an accident resulting in death, and held without bail.[123][110] On August 18, Fields was charged with three counts of aggravated malicious wounding and two additional counts of malicious wounding.[124]

I support this posting as it is factual and verifiable.

So why the difference?

Decline reason:

First of all, when you use a dictionary, please do so properly. What you quote from Webster's is the first meaning of the adjective, what you have used on Wikipedia is the first meaning of the noun. Secondly, none of the people arrested so far have been convicted of a crime. See WP:BLPCRIME. Thirdly, combining sources in the way you propose here is explicitly not permitted. Fourthly, I don't see where we label Fields a "criminal" or comment on the legality of driving a car into a crowd. Such language solely is meant to make the perpetrators look bad without imparting any information. How about "The statue that glorified treasonous rebels was pulled down..."? If you can't see the inappropriateness of that tone, or yours, you are unable to write from a neutral point of view, and should not edit at all. Huon (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

98.220.157.243 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is directed at Huon, My use of Criminal is correct as it was a Criminal Act to pull down the statue, and that makes the perpetrators Criminals. There is no doubt to their guilt as there is conclusive video evidence. If there was no evidence as such, then use of the word criminal would not be justified in this setting. If they are found guilty of the charges their status then changes to convicted or found guilty of the charges. The fact that they were arrested and charged confirms that their actions in pulling down the statue was illegal.

Since the charges were against Fields were listed then it should be allowable to list the charges against the eight in this incident in the wikipedia article?

I abhor what Fields did, their is no justification for it. Fields is a Criminal in the same way that the other Eight are, as his Criminal act was caught on video and the evidence is conclusive. His was an illegal act as he was charged with crimes. It is factual to use these terms against him as well.

Your argument to me of describing the statue as "The statue that glorified treasonous rebels was pulled down..."? is not a valid comparison as treasonous is a personal use not a legal one. Why? No confederate was tried for treason. Treason is going against the country, they were trying to form their own country in the same way the colonists were in the revolution from england. the proper american treason example is Benedict Arnold as he switched sides while he was an american officer and if england had won there would have been no USA. Gen Lee Resigned his US army commission then joined the virginia state forces which were then joined with the confederacy. Remember in the context of the time of the civil war, loyalty was to your state first and then the USA, as the states were considered sovereign nations in themselves that joined in a union. In fact the confederate revolution is a more appropriate term then the civil war as in a civil war, one side is trying to take control of the government of one country. It is factual that they were rebels as in order to form a new nation you have to rebel, ask george washington. Glorified is not factual as this statue is a memorial to all who served in the same way a statue at a VFW hall from WW2 is. You might not understand this as you are not an american but appear to be german based on your wiki page.

I am against both the far left and far right on this confederate statue issue, as I am a centrist who looks at facts and the context, and not an ideologue.

The far right needs to acknowledge the fact that the civil war was about slavery and white supremacy, and that some of the statues that were put up with the only purpose to intimidate blacks (most put up in the 1950-1960's) or are statues that in places not relevant to the civil war (in montana) need to come down.

The far left needs to acknowledge that the Union/North was fighting to preserve the union in 1861 and 1862 and that meant a union with slavery legal. Only after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which was a strategic war tactic to deny the confederacy slave labor, and stave off England and France from recognizing the confederacy, was the Union government saying that the end of slavery was a war aim. Still based on diaries of union soldiers in 1863/1864 the vast majority were fighting for union not against slavery. Finally slavery in the US was normal in the context of the time of the civil war. England only freed their slaves in 1834 but exempted East India Company areas, and France only freed theirs in 1848. Most of the rest of the world still allowed slavery/serfdom so the US was not this last holdout of slavery that they falsely describe. You cannot apply most of today's standards against people in the past as there is no relevancy. In summary the far left has to recognize that most of the confederate statues are legitimate otherwise their will be no statues, memorials etc as one can find something wrong with everybody in the past.98.220.157.243 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I really don't know whether you are genuinely continuing to misunderstand what people are telling you, or are simply not listening. The issue is that you must not use any of your own reasoning or deduction whatsoever in a Wikipedia article, you must only use what is is stated in reliable sources (WP:RS). It doesn't matter whether your own reasoning is right or wrong - it must not be included in a Wikipedia article. And you need to stop using this page for your own soapboxing. If you don't start showing that you can listen and understand soon, I fear you are going to lose your ability to edit even this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Mixon. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PM800 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article commentary

Regarding your recent edits to Blood stripe and Battle of Chapultepec:

Please place your comments and concerns regarding article content on the talk pages of the respective articles. Any editorializing within the article will be removed. Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm TheFrog001. 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 List of Confederate monuments and memorials 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. TheFrog001 - Talk to me! 07:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Slavery in the United States, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Eron^Talk 00:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re your lengthy explanation of the edits to Slavery in the United States on my talk page: These are substantial edits. The only reference you seemed to add was to a page containing links to all US census data. You seem to have been doing original research in analyzing this data. This is something you should bring up on the article talk page before you change it again. Eron^Talk 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I can build on this, your contributions are generally longer than is common. When creating a new page or editing a stub, a long contribution can be great. But on a long existing page with many editors, the current version of the page is the result of a long and sometimes undirected process. I strongly recommend bringing up issues on a page's talk page before adding a large new section or making large edits to such a page. Even if your edits were perfect (and that is not the case with your edits), many editors would be tempted to revert them out of an abundance of caution. On a talk page, also, long edits can also be a sign of problems. In your case, you add a lot of material because you are explaining the results of your original research. Regardless of the validity of your work and conclusions, such material doesn't really belong on wikipedia. In general, if you can't explain yourself more succinctly, you should think about whether or not you are basing your suggestions on original research. Continuing to try to add original research to wikipedia is not consistent with the mission of the project to build an encyclopedia. Going against this mission is actually very bad, and you could be blocked for continuing such behavior. The reason I mention this is that I am concerned that you have not really internalized wikipedia's core content policies and pillars. You are obviously a highly motivated editor, and I hope you could be a great addition here, but I feel that you need to commit yourself to working within the constraints of an encyclopedia almost entirely based on secondary and tertiary sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Slavery in the United States 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User:Acroterion, I am 98.220.157.243, I posted the original post with Bullet Points to reflect the table from the book correctly. To recreate the table would have taken up too much space so I put the data in bullet points. Malik Shabazz edited my original post to Prose three times. I did take his suggestions to add secession and his concern over state abbreviations by including the full state names at least once. He is the one that by changing it to prose is changing my original post. He said that "This is an encyclopedia article, not a table" I responded "Encyclopedias including Wikipedia have bullet points! The Wiki Article "History of Slavery" uses bullet points in two places. Prose does not work when citing specific data in a specific order" Just because I am not a registered user like Malik Shabazz does not mean I should be the one singled out for reverting to my original post, when it was Malik Shabazz who changed my original post three times? If I see Bullet points used in other wikipedia articles in the same way, what gives Malik Shabazz the right to change it to prose?98.220.157.243 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted by three different editors. Please resolve the issue on the article talkpage, not by edi-warring. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF as well. Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Slavery in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.