User talk:Honethefield98

March 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Music of the United States. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, you were making the same edits using a range of IP addresses from the Greater Chicago area, the range of Special:Contributions/2601:243:400:F535:0:0:0:0/64. Lots of your contributions are Amero-centric denials of the conclusions made by music critics and musicologists that various genres of music originated outside the US. That would only work if you had a leg to stand on, a reference supporting your position, but you don't. Instead, you make up your own version of events, supported by nothing.

If you don't stop your combative and contrarian behavior, you'll get blocked. Binksternet (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American popular music; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Binksternet (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:46, 19 March 2019 (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).

Honethefield98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the edits I changed had demonstrably incorrect information according to the Wikipedia pages for punk rock and Heavy Metal. Ex. punk was not invented or “most closely associated with the UK”, it originated in the US. I was not trying to push a point of view at all. I was writing about American developments in popular music on a page dedicated to that. The section in question had information that was incorrect and unsourced. It is not appropriate to hold me to a standard that other users were not held to. The information I was posting was expanded, common sense information (describing three major genres of “prog rock” where the original version just listed prog rock, deleting inadequate and demonstrably false and lacklustre information, such as “most of the pioneers in Heavy Metal were British”, which isn’t really true, and listing examples of American Heavy Metal pioneers and influences taken directly from the Heavy Metal page’s history section. Binksternet is talking about things that aren’t “agreed upon by musicologists and journalists” as if there’s any certifiable consensus by such a vague class of people. The popular consensus is that America co-developed and/or influenced heavy metal, even as the New Wave of British Heavy Metal cemented Birmingham as a preeminent originating city. TL;DR nothing I said needed sources. It also was not at all “POV pushing”. It was simple, common-sense expansions on already-present information, deletion of partially incorrect content, and the addition of content that’s literally discussed within the heavy metal article itself. Please unblock me. I do not deserve it. Honethefield98 (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Purely procedural decline, as a new unblock request has been submitted. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:39, 19 March 2019 (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.

Contrary to your assertions, the threshold for content on Wikipedia articles is verifiability. It does not matter if you assert that something is objectively "true", even if you are right. An editor's justification of why their unsourced changes are "the truth" are completely and utterly meaningless on Wikipedia. That is not the standard. Please adjust your approach accordingly, if you would like to make a serious unblock request. Asserting that you "know the truth" is not going to be sufficient. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{Unblock | reason=alright, here ya go! <ref>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music_before_1970</ref> That’s the only source that I need. This was an article about American popular music and the entry before mine contained incorrect information that had absolutely no verifiabilty to it. So I shouldn’t be held to any higher a standard than information that was let past without a second look. I repeat: I did nothing wrong. Please unblock me and stop gatekeeping. Thank you! I’d love a response.}}

References

To be clear, we're not looking for you to "win" a content dispute in an unblock request. We're looking for you to address the behavioral issue. See the guide for specific requirements. ~Swarm~ {talk} 08:39, 19 March 2019 (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).

Honethefield98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi! I apologize for engaging in what could’ve been construed as aggressive edit-warring, but I do have sources to add at this point, and would love to have my account viewed for unblocking. I firmly believe that I was justified in posting the information that I did, and do not think it would hurt the integrity of the article in question if I did so. Thank you for your time!

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time; you had two. You say you had sources, but the source you have provided in your previous unblock request is inappropriate, as it is Wikipedia itself, therefore a violation of WP:RS. You have not convinced me that you understand WP:CITE and WP:RS (indeed, you've convinced me you don't). The requirement to cite new additions is on you, and you cannot use Wikipedia itself to be that citation. Yamla (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2019 (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.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself

Note that, while it may be counterintuitive, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for use in Wikipedia. Mojoworker (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]