User talk:KAvin

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! agtx 05:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Red Shirts (Southern 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 article's 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. agtx 05:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly provided evidence to support the fact that my edits are correct. If Wikipedia wants to have correct information, then the edits should stand and not be undone simply because people don't agree with what is historically correct information. KAvin (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith

You and I have a content dispute that we're trying to resolve. That's fine. That's how Wikipedia works, and I'm happy to talk through our disagreement at dispute resolution or the talk page. However, going to my user page and making comments unrelated to that dispute for the sole purpose of suggesting that I am not a good editor? That would not appear to be in good faith. If you have an issue with me beyond our content dispute, raise it with me directly. agtx 16:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

===I simply provided a new user with what might be a remedy for their "problem" with your overly aggressive "editing". If you take "offence" to my trying to help a newbie to Wikipedia, I am sorry, but I thought that is what this whole experiment was about. Take care now. Btw, I have another issue about your "edit" on the Red Shirts page that I made, but I suppose it won't do any good to present it to you here.

"Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such."

Just to clarify, I do assert that there is malice on your part, in your assertion that "Democrat" is somehow "pejorative", yet "white supremacist" is not.

KAvin (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you to a Wikipedia article called Democrat Party (epithet). I thought that was pretty clear and specific evidence, and I did not intend my comment to be malicious. It was a comment on your edit, and not on you personally. Please do not undo my reversion of your edit to my user page again. I decide how the discussions on my page operate. agtx 21:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see where you "pointed out" that my use of "Democrat" to describe the Red Shirts of the post WBTS South as anything but, in your words, "pejorative". I simply pointed out to you that my use of "Democrat" was simply a factual term based on history, including the Wikipedia entry itself, and that the term "white supremacist" is being used in a pejorative(demeaning, insultive)manner, and being defended by you. You assume that I used "Democrat" in a "demeaning" manner, which was not my intention at all, despite what your opinion of my reasoning for using that term to describe the Red Shirts is. I gave a couple of options to replace the inflamatory and incorrect use of the qualifier "white supremacist" on the entry for the Red Shirts, which you and North Shoreman have taken exception to, so I turned it over to a 3rd party, who hopefully, will look at my objection without the bias that you two apparently hold. As far as you chastising me for "editing" what is on your page, excuse me, I just wanted anyone who read it to get the WHOLE story, and not just YOUR side of it!!!KAvin (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did take a gander at the Wikipedia article you referenced and I have a quote, then a question for you. The quote from the Wikipedia article: " 'Democrat Party' is a political epithet used in the United States for the Democratic Party. The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since at least 1940.[1]". My question is this, how do you find my use of the term "Democrat" in describing a political party from the post Reconstruction South(1870's) "pejorative", when by the definition you supplied here, that is simply not the case??? It seems to me that you have a biased "agenda" in protecting the pejorative "white supremacist" when describing a political party from the Southern United States. If I am wrong in believing this, please explain how, as I believe the two reference points you attached as "proof" to defend you case, are biased as well, one being an op-ed from a paper with heavy bias against the South and its people, written a week after a hate crime in 2015. The other a blurb from a PBS video on slavery. I simply find your over zealous, aggressive editing of other folks contributions very problematic, not to mention extremely off putting.KAvin (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you feel strongly about this issue, and as I said, I am happy to work it out over at dispute resolution (where I have posted an opening statement, as requested by the mediator). If you think the sources I cited are unreliable and you have others, please bring them up there. I don't think that the way you're approaching me or this conversation is productive, however, and I'd prefer not to continue it without moderation. agtx 15:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Shirts

Yes. Your closing comment at DRN is correct. Two editors disagree with you, and that is a very small consensus. So your next reasonable step is indeed a Request for Comments. If you want help writing it neutrally, you can ask me for help. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:BATTLEGROUND, [{WP:HERE]] and WP:IDHT. 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 ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From your first edit, to remove "white supremacist" from an article (and making that as "minor", which is odd for a new user) to your last, you have displayed an unwillingness to work with others, and an amazing amount of arrogance and hubris. Wikipedia doesn't report the Truth®, we document facts that are covered in secondary sources, and when appropriate, analysis of those sources by other sources, with the goal of painting a balanced picture. You seem quite focused on revisionist writing, which is not consistent with our mission. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't collaborate, it is impossible to get along with other and it is unfair to other editors. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but I'm uncomfortable having you edit here until you have a full grasp of what consensus means and have communicated a willingness to actually work with others instead of simply accusing others of malice. You might also want to read WP:NPOV before appealing your block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay, Mr. Brown. I don't think Wikipedia has anything to offer folks like me who deal in facts and truths, so I won't be appealing your ban of me. Have a good one now.KAvin (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)KAvin[reply]