User talk:SNdeC

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mr rnddude (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the Talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Remsense ‥ 论 14:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Domitian. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Wikipedia runs off consensus. You continue to make edits which run contrary to it. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Holbech. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Laun chba ller 14:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently "appear" to be vandalizing an article and crippling valuable information for no reason. It's not me who should "collaborate", it's someone else who should be recognize its absolute value and there can be no consensus on what's obvious. SNdeC (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information you added does not belong on a disambiguation page. Also, courtesy ping to @Praxicidae:, who also reverted you.--Laun chba ller 14:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a disambiguation page, it's a page on the subject of the surname, like so many I've seen on Wikipedia, that's what both of you don't want to accept. SNdeC (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fairer point, although a) it still shouldn't be on the same page as the list (e.g. Spencer (surname)), b) you shouldn't have reinstated the edit after being reverted, and c) there's no way that should be only one paragraph. Let's try this again - pinging @Praxidicae: this time.--Laun chba ller 14:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's as it goes on Elliott. It was wrongly reverted on false grounds. More than one paragraph still isn't justified. SNdeC (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Family of Pope Leo XIV, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all over the site's pages. If someone wants to use them, just has to take them from there. SNdeC (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNdeC, please read the following essays on what qualifies as a valid source to use on Wikipedia: WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:NOR and WP:USERGENERATED. All sources must meet these standards. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The official records mentioned on a user generated source are neither original research nor unreliable. SNdeC (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are, however, WP:PRIMARY. The reporting the the NYTimes article was excellent secondary coverage. That type of information is what is needed. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No newspaper can cover an entire genealogy. And that primary rule leaves lots of information out for no reason. SNdeC (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses secondary sources. Using primary sources, especially for genealogy, relies on experts making connections that are not explicitly there but experts are able to deduce and report on. Such research done by experts can then be reported on in reliable secondary sources. For example, there was a source indicating the birthdate of the pope's brother, Louis Prevost. However, even if we know that someone names Louis Prevost lives in that area, we as Wikipedia editors cannot make that assumption that he is the proper Louis Prevost. That is original research from primary sources and is generally not allowed on Wikipedia. Especially in an article like this that there is some traffic on as people are curious about the Pope's heritage, all sourcing must be impeccable. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation presented by the website is blameless. SNdeC (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article is excellent. Anything beyond that will need further reliable secondary reporting. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That means throwing away valid data. SNdeC (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an indiscriminate collection in this case, it's an objective and structured genealogy. SNdeC (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what genealogic websites and databases are for. But not Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia based primarily on reliable secondary sources and does not claim or aim to contain all knowledge. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales said he wanted all the knowledge in the world in Wikipedia. Ans it's not all knowledge, it was some, with the respective external link. SNdeC (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales is not a dictator and arbiter of what is or is not contained on Wikipedia. WP:JIMMY ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is he doing here? What is he good for? "Let's build an encyclopedia! You do that!..." SNdeC (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Galba. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. NebY (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not warring, it's countervandalism. It's worse that someone deletes truthful content than the fact that the one trying to restore it is warring against that someone. SNdeC (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning - see WP:VANDALISM, particularly the introduction and within it, WP:NOTVANDALISM. Your edits do not qualify as exempt under WP:NOT3RR. NebY (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gerard Adriaan Heineken. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Dugal

added a link pointing to Dugald

Edward Nevill, 8th Baron Bergavenny

added a link pointing to Canidelo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Do not add external links to an article unless the article's text and sources justify it. For example, if an article doesn't say anything about a person's sexuality, then it shouldn't have any ELs about their sexuality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

Hello! Please do not categorize biographies as belonging to any sexual category when there is no reliable evidence, only speculation and guessing, not to say gossip (which sells books and tabloids)! Stating that such an article "says" someone is this or that does not make it so. Sexual preference should only be included in biographies if it (1) has been declared by the subject h-self and (2) is relevant to the life story. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EDITWAR; WP:BRD

The recent edit you made to Beatrice Lillie have been reverted. Please do not WP:EDITWAR. Instead, once your edits have been opposed, WP:BRD, if you wish to pursue the matter further, then open a discussion on the article's Talk page and try to raise a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of your views. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor obviously ignores warnings like this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. SNdeC (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025 (2)

We do not do this sort of thing. We discuss on an article's talk page to achieve consensus. Consensus cannot be achieved by arbitrary editing with edit surmmaries. You have been warned before, I see, and now I can only try to help by telling you frankly that during the 16 years I've been logged in, I've seen many users blocked for this specific behavior. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. SNdeC (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be sorry. Instead, per WP:BRD, use Talk pages to make your proposals and discuss sources and evidence. That way you can discuss sources and article development with ALL the editors interested in an article, and it will help you avoid bad mistakes like edit warring over someone's sexuality when you haven't even checked the source that you are citing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the apology you continue to engage in the same behaviour in other articles. If a category has been disputed you must go to the talk page and try and resolve the dispute instead of re-adding it. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where? If you mean the LGBTQ categories, the ones that were deleted were the ones that stated as an absolute truth that the biographed were such, I merely added categories that stated, based on the article itself, that they were suspected of being LGBTQ. That's not disputing nor readding, it's accepting what was told and adjusting the categorization to that. SNdeC (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were told to seek consensus on the article talk page and you have ignored that instruction. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to seek consensus. If I wanted to readd a category not sustained by the text I would have to seek consensus, but, before the lack of evidence, I added a more appropriate category instead, one that refers to the doubt about the facts, leaving the issue of certainty to the experts on the matter, discussion in which I don't wish to get involved for manifest lack of knowledge. If they reach a consensus over a certainty, then that category shall be added. If we don't have a certainty, I merely add a category that states a mere possibility. SNdeC (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to be hopeless when it comes to arbitrarily category-labeling people about whom speculative literature "stated as an absolute truth that the biographed were such" or "that they were suspected of being LGBTQ" (?? hardly the same things). We may have to block this user. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not arbitrarily, if the text sustains in I had a corresponding category, which might be a Category of certainty or of possibility. It's not the same thing and I make that distinction. When you don't agree with people even if they're right you threaten with blocking... SNdeC (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your interest in placing categories about sexuality on the bios of people - "of posssibility" or for any other reason - does not improve this project, and, what's worse, your interest in arguing with each of us experienced editors who are trying to give you good advice, and constantly talking back to us, is not in your own best interest here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A category was created for the cases of mere possibility and it does add to the project. In any case, what matters isn't so much the experience but the knowledge over the matter, and if and when someone proves something based on actual works, I always give in. SNdeC (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your incessant interest in labelling people's sexuality and your constant talking back to helpful editors are both quite disturbing. Clearar? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing on something you dislike isn't disturbing, that's not something that should be taken into account in a project! And I don't talk back, I merely reply to the issues lifted, you don't know in which tone I'm doing so. SNdeC (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All categories have to be sourced by references in the article content. We don't place categories about religion, gender, sexuality, religion based on speculating or "hypotheticals." Please read Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#EGRS for more information.

For the category Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed sexuality, the category instructions insist that Editors are advised to use caution before applying the category; the article should contain significant reliable sourcing indicating the presence of ambiguity or dispute regarding the individual's sexuality. That means multiple reliable sources of the highest quality, not tabloid sources or tell-all books. As you can see, this category is only used on 72 biographical articles so the bar is set high and if your edit is contested, you should start a discussion on the article talk page. The onus is on the editor who wants to ADD content to indicated that this content is verifiable not those who want to remove the content ("The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.")

When everyone who is posting to your talk page is saying you are editing in violation of policy, you should listen instead of arguing. If it was one or two editors, that might be chalked up to a difference of policy interpretation but everyone who has come here has cited problems. If this continues, you'll be called to WP:ANI and those discussions can end in a topic ban or block.

When you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or if you doubt what an editor is saying in comments on your talk page, please bring your questions to the Teahouse where experienced editors can offer you advice, support and a second opinion. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Papal name

added links pointing to Pope John Paul, Pope Adrian, Pope Agapetus, Pope Urban, Pope Gregory, Pope Leo, Pope John, Pope Paul, Pope Stephen, Pope Pius, Pope Benedict, Pope Clement, Pope Alexander, Pope Innocent, Pope Victor, Pope Callixtus, Pope Lucius, Pope Sixtus, Pope Felix, Pope Marcellus, Pope Sylvester, Pope Damasus, Pope Anastasius, Pope Boniface, Pope Celestine, Pope Gelasius, Pope Pelagius, Pope Martin, Pope Adeodatus, Pope Julius, Pope Honorius, Pope Theodore, Pope Eugene, Pope Paschal, Pope Sergius, Pope Nicholas and Pope Marinus

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for disambiguation of links where there is more than one person and the link points to the dab page (as on Papal name) is set out at WP:INTDAB.— Rod ^talk 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Roman emperor. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. It is very striking how rarely you use talk pages to gain consensus and how often you restore your material without such consensus. You do need to take the above seriously. NebY (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're damaging the article for no valid reason. SNdeC (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to gain consensus for your material on article talk pages, not your personal talk page or anyone else's. See WP:ONUS, part of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. NebY (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the content isn't being disputed, since its based on facts that the articles sustain, the issue is that some don't want it to be mentioned in the article. SNdeC (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the content is most certainly disputed - and even if it was not, you need to gain consensus for your material on article talk pages, not your personal talk page or anyone else's. See WP:ONUS, part of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. However much you dislike Wikipedia policy, you need to stop disputing it, read our policies and guidelines linkeed above by myself and others, and accept the warnings. NebY (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I argue with someone who doesn't dispute the veracity of the content but merely dislikes it to be added? SNdeC (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, then: You need to gain consensus for your material on article talk pages, not your personal talk page or anyone else's. See WP:ONUS, part of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. However much you dislike Wikipedia policy, you need to stop disputing it, read our policies and guidelines linked above by myself and others, and accept the warnings. NebY (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must call people to the discussion on the talk pages then, otherwise they don't know. SNdeC (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What people? Doug Weller talk 13:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The people who challenge my edits in order to reach the intended consensus. SNdeC (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 3 June 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've already stopped adding content without discussing it, the blocking is an exaggeration. SNdeC (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User does not appear to be willing to edit within Wikipedia's consensus framework. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2025 (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.

Indef as a first resort, Doug Weller, seems excessive. Their reply to your question appears reasonable to me: If they have an edit disputed, they need to open a talk page discussion and invite (presumably by ping, hence 'call') the disputant to it. That's basically BRD and'd^{brand spanking new contraction} be a marked improvement over edit-warring. That said, that a block was avoided this long is remarkable. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block was not because of the addition of unsourced comment (discussion aside). How long would you think appropriate? Doug Weller talk 14:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought their response to your question was what triggered the indef, particularly the CIR portion?

I'm a little confused by 'the block was not because of the addition of unsourced [content]'. Is the 'not' unintended here? If neither 'refusal to discuss', nor 'persistent addition of unsourced content' was the trigger, then what was, what is 'etc' here? If 'unsourced [content]', and not the above reply or 'etc', is the block reason then the indef invariably stands until that problem is acknowledged and committed to being rectified. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed their edits and talk page? The block says "with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Disruptive editing competence issues, adding unsourced, etc." If another Admin wants to unblock, or shorten the block, that's fine. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, people only get blocked after a while, after warnings coming not from the users but from the administrators and are usually blocked in a progressive amount of time, never indefinitely for small things. SNdeC (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr mddude, Their edits have been disruptive in many ways. They added sexuality categories to many historical biographies on inadequate bases, re-adding when reverted by multiple editors and edit-warring far beyond three times but over days and weeks (e.g. Special:History/Galba all last month). They inserted blatantly wrong lengthy OR into sourced text, and reinstated it arguing (in edit summary only) It's not indiscriminate, it's exhaustive. Completeness deserves inclusion. The content isn't disputed because it's accurate. Those rules are being misinterpreted.[1] (that last possibly being a denial of WP:ONUS, or maybe ignoring it). I see elsewhere today the edit summary She mentions his name somewhere on Instagram. Linkings to ethnicities are useful and appear everywhere.[2], to justify restoring BLP content with its citation-needed tag and overlinking of "English" and "German". I've not tried to follow all their earlier edits, but on this talk page we see them previously refusing, sometimes at length, to get the point about sourcing, indiscriminacy, edit-warring and more, and today they persisted in such editing. On this talk page today, by the time they had maybe got one point about needing to use article talk-pages, about which they'd already said "sorry" to others here two weeks ago, they had quite exhausted my patience. "Disruptive" is mild but fair. NebY (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories were based on the text presented at the article, including Galba. But I'm the only one censored. It wasn't OR and the sourced text wasn't a quote, nor was it blatantly wrong, as long as one knows History, the articles on the people I mentioned support my edits, but no one claimed it was wrong until now. I source whenever I can, virtually always, and I'm not adding information indiscriminately, some editors simply disagree on that same information without grounds, while I'm censored for adding it. Most of my edits have nothing wrong, and the ones who might have any issues with, are subject to interpretation. As long as I correct the edits and don't add the same content more than three times it's not edit warring, nor do I have to reach a consensus for every time someone deletes my edits, only if the issue goes on must I do that. Just because we collided twice on one article that isn't reason enough to exhaust anyone's patience. Editors should be more patient than that. Being constructive isn't disruptive, and since my reposition of content someone disagrees with didn't escalate, it's mild and unfair. SNdeC (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're confusing WP:3RR with WP:EDITWARRING. Violations of the three-revert rule are instances of edit warring, but there are many types of behavior that are edit warring that are not specifically three-revert rule violations. Being correct is not enough; something being right doesn't justify edit warring, short of a few specific exceptions, such as removing libelous material from a WP:BLP. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I must justify every action I take with every editor that reverts all or some of my edits even without reason without even being able to remake the edits... SNdeC (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I suggest you read WP:Consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impossible situation. If I have to reason with people just because of a disagreement over linkings or such, I won't be able to do anything else. It's easier to try to convince and reach a consensual version through editing. It's a very uneffective way of working. If someone has a whim over content, reasonable and more competent people are forced to cave in to that whim, thus crippling the work done and what is intended to be built. SNdeC (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ethnicelebs.com

The site ethnicelebs.com is not a reliable source. Please don't use it to add content to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't it?... SNdeC (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community came to consensus that ethnicelebs contains user-generated content. See its entry at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (which also links to the discussions of its reliability). If you do a search on wikipedia, you will find that it is not cited on any articles. Schazjmd (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a matter of consensus but rather a matter of proof: either the website states it or hardly anyone would find out if it's true. Not being perennial doesn't mean it will be altered, since genealogies, although might exceptionally be corrected in case of doubts, are, by definition, perennial. Not being cited doesn't mean it has expressly been rightly or wrongly excluded. SNdeC (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you clearly don’t understand how the word “perennial “ is being used, as your response makes no sense. A bog problem with that source is that it replicates our articles and they aren’t reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you clearly don't understand the content of that source: those full genealogies, in which the ethnic classifications are based, don't come from Wikipedia, only the small biographical entries, although they should be able to create them on their own, but that says nothing about where the ancestries were originated. "Perennial" means the source in question can't be altered at any time, and, although in theory that website can be altered, inn practice it won't, since ancestries themselves don't change... SNdeC (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the word has various meanings, you can’t choose which one you like. Our articles on the list is Perennial sources list. Nothing to do with unchangeable. Where do you think the non Wikipedia stuff comes from? Doug Weller talk 19:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, I actually didn't know about that meaning, perennial on the dictionary means enduring or permanent. SNdeC (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial sources means sources that are forever being brought up for discussion again and again. Schazjmd (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]