User talk:ThatIPEditor

Warning
In your edit summaries you have been rather rude and pushing your own point of view. This is a warning. Please discuss your substantive edits before making them, and further please review the rules. If you restore anything that was removed without discussion first Rule 3 will be applied. Please observe this blog entry from TLPG. Thank you. NurseTN (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, can you provide diffs of edits where I have been "rude" and "pov pushing"? Also, the substantive edits policy seems to restrictive, and it isn't followed well, even by you. In addition, is not vandalism.  I was fixing dead links (http://www.nas.org.uk no longer resolves to the website), updating content, and removing unsourced, and probably outdated information. Also please note that I have submitted the policy for office review.  Thanks! ThatIPEditor 21:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, the edits I made are in good faith, and this means that it is not vandalism. Calling these things vandalism could, in a sense, be considered a personal attack. I would like you to stop doing that. In the future, please do send people diffs. Thanks, ThatIPEditor 21:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You were rude in the edit summary twice - here ("POV pushy" is rude because you removed educational material which has a POV by default), and here ("We are not a link directory" is rude because this Wikia IS a link directory by way of education). Your tagging for deletion of Kentucky was equally so for the same reason. The reason you were told it was vandalism is quite simply because you did not read the rules - rule 3 in particular. NurseTN is am admin and bureaucrat like me and we are the exceptions to the substative editing rule without discussion. If there is an issue, users are expected to mention them first. That is how this Wikia works. Now yes, NAS had issues and I fixed the link you spoke of and also added a couple of references. If you had pointed out the issue first we wouldn't be at this point. Oh - and removing the small on references was not on either. I do that for a reason - it's called streamlining the look of the page. As far as discussing substantive content changes as a rule in general - it is because there is LOT of work to be done on many articles. A view of my sandbox bears this out. The policy is there primarily to prevent vandalism and poor editing. It is very important that this is done right and careless additions (even in good faith) need to be avoided. Submitted the policy for office review is also rude and insulting and restrains my rights as admin and bureaucrat to make the rules I see fit under the circumstances of the amount of hate that exists generally for Autism. Please re-read the rules and if there are any other questions, please ask. TLPG 22:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and your edit to the Murder of Londond McCabe was risky under the same rule - but I'll let it go because it was an excellent addition, and because it was short enough to not be considered substantive - just (the main reason it looked substantive was wholly and solely because of the source - which is fine). TLPG 22:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok. I didn't really know that 'crats could bypass the policies regarding major edits. I tried to be as civil as I could with the edit summaries, and not knowing how high the standard is here, I put what I would have put if this was Wikipedia. Before I continue editing, I'l look at a couple articles, and try to learn the style here. Thanks for the comments! ThatIPEditor 00:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)