User talk:Raven9nine

March 2023

Hello, I'm Cakelot1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Alley of Angels, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Fundamentally, trying to make a connection between the topic of an article about children dying in the war and the monument is WP:SYNTH, and no matter how obvious the connection is to you we need a Relaible Source making the connection before we can include it, per WP:DUE. These are the rules that are established by Consensus and no matter how much you or I may not like them we must either follow them of try to change them at WP:VP. Reverting aditions that don't follow the rules is not vandalism. If you can find and WP:RSs (not google searchs, database entries, blogs etc.) that discuss the topic' (the monument itself) in depth you should provide them at the talk page or Deletion discussion otherwise the article is very likely going to be deleted soon for a lack of Notability. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alley of Angels. 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. Cakelot1 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 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. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyareasexpert (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you have engaged on the talk page, but continuing to edit war during that discussion is not acceptable. Article stability is preferred while discussion is ongoing, even if the stable version has problems. Take some time away from Wikipedia to cool off and try to understand what the other editors are explaining to you.

See also WP:BRD. That is a "best practice" that we should all strive to follow. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR this editor cannot edit the article anyway. Mellk (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I doubt that applies. The topic of the article in question (Alley of Angels) pre-dates the Russia-Ukraine war by some years. It isn't ECP protected either, probably for that reason. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since it says Russo-Ukrainian War (since 2014) and not just 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I would imagine this article would. And from my understanding, ECP is not required for the articles but may be used for enforcement. Mellk (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war. The article was being vandalised. They replaced the text of the article about the memorial to the children killed in Donbass with a passage that falsly claimed the memorial was put there by Russians for propaganda purposes. That is obviously a blatent lie, there was never any supporting evidence of that. It has been well documented that a lot of children were being killed because civilian neighborhoods were being shelled. Each time I reverted the article back to the original description the same vandals changed it back to theie propaganda yet I get blocked for edit warring?? This is ridiculous. Raven9nine (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read any of what Anachronist said above. You violated The three-revert rule, after being told about it. It doesn't matter how wrong you think an article is, you must engage in consensus building, and discussion per WP:BRD (You made a bold edit to improve the article (which is fine); multiple other editors disagreed that your edit was making it better and reverted it (which is also fine); You then need to discuss it with the editors to find a consensus). Cakelot1 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just as an note, I do think it's possible that we could include the plenglish source in the article (I honestly don't know about it's reliability, but it is the closest thing I've seen to an WP:RS giving that view point). But such an inclusion should be discussed with other editors first. Cakelot1 (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am not even going to waste my time with you or your little gang of despicable liars.

The original article was being vandalized.

The text describing the memorial was replaced by lies. Raven9nine (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Alley of Angels" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Alley of Angels has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 28 § Draft:Alley of Angels until a consensus is reached. HappyWith (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]