User talk:Tempai1233

April 2024

Your recent editing history at Ilbe Storehouse 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. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a bot? If you are human, are you able to read this website's rules? Hyperlinking to a forum is not a valid source. Can editors post links directly to 4chan /pol/ and use that as a source on a wikipedia article? The user doing this should be IP banned. Tempai1233 (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, it was not done in bad faith, which means your reverts are not exempt from the 3RR brightline rule. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, thank you for starting the discussion at the article's talk page. Because of the formatting of the source link, it wasn't immediately obvious what was being linked to. However, once you explained the situation on the talk page, it made it easier to see why you were removing the passage in question. Not only have I commented on the article talk page, but also because the other user involved in the edit war is the one who added the passage in question on 1 March, I have removed the text in question while the discussion is ongoing. The general rule on Wikipedia is that the editor seeking to make a change has the burden for providing sourcing as well as getting consensus on changes to the article. Based on the history of the article, the consensus version of the page does not include the passage.

That said, the correct way to deal with a situation like this, after you remove the text twice and a user restores it, is to 1) bring the issue up on the talk page (which you have done) and 2) consider whether the situation needs to be taken to another venue such as WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. That's probably not necessary here, since you've drawn my attention to the article, and I'll start, or help you start, the RSN report if needed. (And I hope it won't be needed, but if it came to it, I'd call for backup at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) —C.Fred (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]