User talk:SuperBikeFan

October 2019

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dove Cameron, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 05:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury:Why are you removing what I added? You are giving no reason for removing sourced content. None of your rollbacks haver provided a reason.SuperBikeFan (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury:Please respond when you can. Thank you. SuperBikeFan (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Hi. As per WP:BRD, when your edits are reverted, please discuss. Adding long quotes that have been removed to featured articles is bad practice. If you think your edit is right, please start a discussion on the talk page.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know the logic of a sourced quote that has been obn the page for months being automatically removed? This seems to be a politically motivated move on your part. SuperBikeFan (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to discuss. Not revert.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to be sensible, then read. The sourcing of a quote is a given. Having unsourced quotes would be ridiculous. So saying 'it's sourced' is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether editors agree that the quote should be included in a wikipedia article. The fact that several editors have removed the quote suggests that you don't have consensus as it stands. Should you wish to achieve consensus, begin a discussion on the article's talk page and make your case. Please understand that as a featured article the standards are high and protocol should be followed strictly.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of yourself, there was one other person, not "several." And even he stated he may have done something wrong by removing that quote. I decided to re-add it as a blockquote.

It is completely unacceptable that you reinstated your edit following this discussion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your recent editing history at John Lennon 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, people have to go to the talk page before they could remove sourced material. You can't just automatically removed source content until there's a discussion about it. SuperBikeFan (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is incorrect. There are a lot of reasons sourced material can be challenged (and it can be challenged by removing it per WP:BRD). Everything that is sourced does not have to be included in an article. If that was the only requirement many articles would become bloated with irrelevant, unbalanced, and in some cases trivial information. If I was so inclined, I could easily double the size of John Lennon by adding unnecessary information that violates the policies that I have linked. But just because I can doesn't mean I should. Sourcing is the minimum requirement for inclusion in an article. It is not the sole requirement. For starters you need to read WP:NOR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:N, and WP:NOT. Sundayclose (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]