User talk:SentryHelios118

SentryHelios

Some people are more of conduits for truth than others. I hold myself to a very high standard of knowledge, and I make sure that people are aware of that. SentryHelios118 (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Hello. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Whenever you add or change content on Wikipedia, you must provide a reliable source that verifies it. Please read WP:V and WP:RS for general concept and WP:REFB if you need help with how to do it. But please stop adding content without a source. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, looks like it was in the source already present in the article. A lot of editors try to sneak info into articles doing that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Your recent editing history at Alternative rock shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested that I take this to the talk page to settle the matter. However, this was previously attempted, and no one else presented any credible evidence that refuted my case. Until that does happen, I will disregard that suggestion.

Additionally, I would also suggest that you do not make further edits, as you are also engaged in this “edit war” (if it can even be called that) with me.

Until then, make a stronger case for your argument, or cease editing the discussed portion of the page SentryHelios118 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have warned before about edit warring on this. Your edit does not have consensus and your justification of it has no basis in Wikipedia's policies. As has been explained to you before, "I disagree, and I know best." is not a position that bears any weight. Further edit warring on this will likely lead to you being blocked. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“I disagree and know best” seems to be the position of the author of aforementioned article as well. Nothing in said article proves the music of Billie Eilish or Lorde is alternative. Thus, claim cannot be considered reliable. Do not give further warnings to me, as your previous ones seem to be invalid SentryHelios118 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the Tony Mitchell source, but the Independant source calls Billie Eilish's music alternative four times, so what you've said is provably incorrect. Issan Sumisu (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, what the Independent source said is provably incorrect. Is is a fact that nothing about the music of Billie Eilish or Lorde is “alternative” even by pop standard.

I will revise the article when I have the time. If you are interested in having them remain on the page, I would suggest you work on putting together a coherent argument as to what elements about them you think are alternative. I would be interested in hearing your case, if you can make a well-reasoned one. SentryHelios118 (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SentryHelios118 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: ). Thank you. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Alternative rock. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (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).

SentryHelios118 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here SentryHelios118 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unambiguous edit warring. That you don't accept Wikipedia's policy of WP:CONSENSUS is not promising. That you hold your personal opinion superior to both consensus and to sourced information is also not promising. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:51, 11 December 2023 (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.

EscapeOrbit has themselves taken part in the edit war and exempted themselves. A settlement was attempted on a talk page, but EscapeOrbit did not yield. SentryHelios118 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the talk page discussions around this edit warring and my advice to you would be that if you feel a source that is otherwise considered reliable is for some reason unreliable in some way in a specific context, to discuss that at an appropriate location, such as the article's talk page or WP:RSN and explain the reason why it is unreliable. The comments at Talk:Alternative rock#Artists of alternative rock do not explain why the source would be unreliable other than the fact that you disagree with the statements. This in itself is not an indication of unreliability and is unlikely to convince other editors of a source's unreliability. Further, per WP:BRD you boldly removed the sourced content and it was reverted and then a discussion took place. At this point it appears that both the reliable source and consensus support the content's inclusion in the article, and so you should not continue to attempt to remove that content without a consensus that it should be removed. Please note that further attempts to edit war to remove this content will likely result in further blocks of increasing duration or may result in a block preventing you from editing that page entirely. - Aoidh (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also a note about the edit warring at Alternative rock and why EscapeOrbit was not also blocked, in the last 24 hours, while you did not violate WP:3RR, you were edit warring and made 3 reverts within the last 24 hours on a topic that you have edit warred over previously, and several editors on the talk page have pointed out the issue with removing the reliably sourced information. EscapeOrbit has made a single revert in that same timeframe and is restoring sourced information that there appears to be a rough consensus for on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The “consensus” that was reached on the talk page is factually incorrect. It does not matter how many people agree on it. I would encourage you to reassess your position.

In the meantime, I will find an article that supports my argument. Thank you for your time. SentryHelios118 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

is factually incorrect based on what? What evidence can you point at to show that? That's what you need to show on the talk page. When several editors are reverting your edits and pointing out on the talk page that a reliable source supports content (which it does), you need to explain how it is factually incorrect with evidence. This is not a matter that you can simply say "that's wrong" when it's verified by reliable sources and that be in any way sufficient reasoning. - Aoidh (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presented the evidence on the talk page as follows:

/

SEE article header:

"Alternative" refers to the genre's distinction from mainstream or commercial rock or pop music.

Despite claims made by sources, the music of Lorde and Billie Eilish does not reflect those sounds, and is both commercial and mainstream

/

This the nature of things. If the source were to label her as grindcore, that would not make her grindcore. The source is what presented unreliable information, not I SentryHelios118 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusion is an unsourced opinion and not something that can unilaterally supersede both consensus and reliable sources. I do want to stress that I'm merely offering advice on how to proceed in order to change the material in a way that you're seeking without being blocked; I'm not the one you need to convince of anything as I am uninvolved in the dispute itself and am acting here in my capacity as an administrator while also trying to offer advice so that you can avoid being blocked moving forward. You would need a consensus on the article's talk page to remove this material and to do that you need to present fact-based evidence using reliable sources to convince others of what you're saying, in this case that the reliable sources are in fact unreliable, and what you just posted here as evidence is not fact-based evidence, it is a conclusion that you arrived at yourself. I won't comment further on the material itself, that is something you should do on the article's talk page once you are no longer blocked, but if you have questions related to the block itself I will respond. - Aoidh (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My conclusion is NOT an unsourced opinion and IS something that can unilaterally supersede both consensus and reliable sources.

You claim that I do not need to convince you of anything yet you continue to side with those that have put forth factually incorrect information. Again, thank you for your time SentryHelios118 (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia and sometimes consensus results in something you disagree with; I and every other editor has to accept that fact on matters where we disagree with consensus, so I know it can be frustrating to believe that the consensus that has been reached is the "wrong" one, but it is a fundamental process that makes Wikipedia work and cannot be ignored because you disagree with it. I say this to stress that if you continue to edit war you will be blocked from editing (up to an indefinite period of time, meaning a block that does not expire until you can convince an administrator that it is no longer needed), so please keep this in mind moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t “something I disagree with”, it’s an objective fact. If the “consensus” of those people was that the earth was flat, that would not make the earth flat. They would still be factually wrong, as they are now SentryHelios118 (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an "objective fact" then you can find reliable sources supporting the assertion you are making. But none of that matters. You're blocked for edit warring, not the content of your edits; it doesn't matter a bean whether your edits are correct or incorrect -- you'd be blocked for the same behavior if your edits were perfectly source and obviously correct. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Alternative rock) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Aoidh (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I yield for now. You, EarthOrbit, and the others opposed to my position seem to be a small notch above functional opioid addicts in the brains department.

My intelligence is wasted on your ilk and thus I will simply await with joy the days when you all perish like exploited animals doomed by your own obtuseness. Farewell SentryHelios118 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]