2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F

IT service management

Please stop removing information from this article. Sources are needed on Wikipedia, but this does not mean that all unsourced information is immediately removed. If a claim is made without a source, as long as the claim is sound, the best option is to ad "{{cn}}" next to the claim that is being made. There are many articles, and the notion that every statement is always going to have a source is absurd. Philosophy2 (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Philosophy2: Putting "{{cn}}" tag is not enough when lot of bullshit materials are mentioned. Therefore either removed them but provide basic info with cn tag. which I have done it. Also mentioned various other ITSM frameworks.--2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly is mentioned that is so bad? There is nothing opinionated, and nothing that seems factually incorrect. The section is unsourced, but removing it entirely for this reason is not a good solution since there is nothing disruptive on the article. Philosophy2 (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Philosophy2: Its not you or I decide what is right or wrong. Its the reliable sources that will decide. Always remember provide reliable sources when adding information. Unsourced information shall be challenged and removed immediately. Thanks--2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Philosophy2: If you're not sure you can ask any admin guy. You have to provide reliable sources. Simply because you think that is correct doesn't mean that info is correct, unless you provide credible sources. And the best source you'll get either from academic journal or books. Read WP:RS. Thanks--2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

No, unsourced information will not be removed immediately. Yes, the reliability policy is very important, but it doesn't state what you described. There are many articles on Wikipedia that do not cite any sources at all, and even those are not immediately deleted. If information is unsourced, then either look for sources, or put a tag so that other editors can do so. If no sources are found, only then should the information be removed. Philosophy2 (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that the information is correct or incorrect, I am saying that it is sane and makes sense, and therefore should be provided a chance for sources to be added before removal. Philosophy2 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Philosophy2: What is sane or not, its not you decide. The source shall decide. So better provide sources. I have already said academic journal or books are best possible sources but they must be Verified. Thanks--2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources must be added to the section. The section does not need to be removed unless no sources are found for it. Philosophy2 (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Philosophy2: provide a sources and get it over. No further argument. We both have violated wp:3pr already. So now an admin will intervene.--2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have added 2 sources to the section, and might add more. Philosophy2 (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have seen that no need to mention ITIL separately. Rather mention under various framework list. I'll try to mention other frameworks also for the benefit of users.--2409:4060:E88:A22:7D68:A0F4:EA76:941F (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Your recent editing history at IT service management 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Pilaz (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---