User talk:Kevin "Hawk" Fisher

My posting here will turn your TALK tab blue. If you put something, anything, on your User Page, then that tab, along with your signature, will also turm blue. Hard to imagine (for me) why you might be having troubles posting elsewhere, please stick with it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin "Hawk" Fisher, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kevin "Hawk" Fisher! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America

I reverted your edit to List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America because it was so grammatically awkward that it was useless: "Most of these were put up during Civil War anniversary dates also coinciding during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension." Huh?? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Than you @Magnolia677: should have fixed it instead of simply reverting it. That info was obtained directly from the source itself unlike the biased version on it currently that goes against Wiki NPOV policy. Next time give actual reason for it not to be done if you are going to revert it. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

This you? Volunteer Marek 20:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: definitely not. My user name and real name is Kevin. I have no need to hide under any other (unless its Hawk / Hawkster) user name. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm Magnolia677. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I was simply following the consensus from talk page about citations found here. The wiki page that it links to even provides citations. Nor did I think it would be something challenged as gives a clear picture of the Monument where one can easily see text on this monument. Please simply add a citation instead of reverting edits. Or put a CN tag on it, if you need help in doing this please see the Help: Citation Needed page. If we were to revert all edits lacking cites, half the page would be gone. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you used that discussion to support the addition of unsourced content, as that discussion was about unsourced text already on the list. Your edit was a new addition, which like any edit to Wikipedia, is subject to WP:V. If you need assistance, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: ok so ignore that discussion as I do not want to argue about it. But read what else I wrote and read about wiki citing sources help page you quoted, which explains it is used "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged". Since it is monument named in honor for a confederate general it meets the criteria list per the lede. Could stop there with no further explanation needed, however .... The text on the monoment clearly explains what it was in honour for, plus linked page for that confederate clearly explains he served in confederate military (along with whole history of monument I included). So I just did not think it would ever be questioned. Clearly I was wrong as you did question. The proper protocol (and courteous) would be to either find an appropriate citation for it to include or put a Citation Needed Tag on it, as simply reverting it is not only rude, it actually should be listed on that page to begin with. It is much easier to look for cites and verifiability than attempt to figure out what all has simply been erroneously deleted especially on such a busy page as that one. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your recent editing history at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America 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. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. 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 23:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyddlestix: and @Malik Shabazz: So I am expected to follow these instructions when neither of you can follow instructions on posted NPOV tag, simply removing the NPOV even though consensus has not been reached yet. How in world can I take it to the talk page when that was already done on numerous occasions. Consensus was not resolved yet NPOV tag still keeps getting removed. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're expected to observe 3RR. The stuff written on the tag isn't policy. It's just something somebody added. The actual policy is WP:NPOV. Volunteer Marek 02:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I realize I am expected too, my point is everyone else is expected to as well. Yet clearly they are not. I also know the actual policy and have read it. The NPOV tag is not something that somebody has simply made up, that is a standard template that has been in use for many years based on wiki's policy. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belated best wishes for a happy 2018

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]