User talk:96.36.47.50

August 2024

Hi 96.36.47.50! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of World Federation of Advertisers several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:World Federation of Advertisers, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice why I reverted it? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. But I think you're incorrect in your reasoning and, as I just said the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable. In other words, it doesn't matter why you reverted it. When other editors have disagreed with you multiple times, you need to stop reverting and start a discussion. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is incorrect in my reasoning? 96.36.47.50 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You demanded a primary source, which is both directly against Wikipedia sourcing guidelines (which prefers secondary sources where possible) and strange because your edit removed a primary source which directly supported the text.

The text says In 2019, WFA formed the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM), a global cross-industry alliance which aims to improve digital safety and eliminate harmful online content, launching it in late June. This followed the livestreaming on Facebook of a video of the Christchurch mosque shootings in March 2019.

The source, which is from the WFA itself, says The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) was a voluntary cross-industry initiative created in 2019 to address digital safety. GARM was set up in the wake of the Christchurch New Zealand Mosque shootings during which the killer livestreamed the attack on Facebook.

The text basically couldn't be more strongly sourced unless it was just copying and pasting. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the message it was in relation to the date in which the statement was published. The WFA is involved in a lawsuit filed Aug 6 of 2024, https://x.com/lindayaX/status/1820838134470328676. Originally the other wikipedian claimed in their edit that GARM was formed in response to the Churchville mosque shootings, and sourced it from the NYTimes, which did not use this language. Instead both the NYTimes and WAF itself simply claim that there was a chronological order of the formation of GARM following the Churchville mosque shootings. This appears to be sensationalization, and importantly these articles are made 2 days after the filing of the lawsuit, on Aug 8 2024.

Thus to my point, when I asked for a primary (older) source, it was to clarify that indeed GARM was formed in response or relation to the Churchville mosque shootings. In this particular instance I believe that a primary source is more appropriate. I hope that clarifies it for you. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article doesn't say that GARM was formed in response to the Christchurch shootings; it says that its formation "followed" the Christchurch shootings. That is supported by the source, which says GARM's formation took place "in the wake" of the shootings. Both the article and the source are making chronological - not causal - claims, using similar language. Thus the article is adequately sourced and does not need to be changed.

It is also not true that the WFA began noting this chronology only in 2024. They have been making a link between the two events since at least 2022. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, thanks. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The page isn't protected

The "lock" symbol is still there, I removed it for you. It doesn't automatically disappear, that's all. Happy Editing! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I couldn't edit it. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Johanna Olson-Kennedy! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! Myrealnamm's Alternate Account (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.