NarkySawtooth
May 2022
edit
Your recent editing history at 13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim 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. SunDawntalk 02:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please to try avoid ad hominems and stick to discussion regarding sources and due weight rather than other editors.
- In this edit of yours, for example, you say "It's a factually untrue sentence ... The sources cited show a line of dialogue about the character's attraction to men, which is in the original Japanese." We rely on verifiability, not truth, so (correct or not) is that what the sources say? If they do and they're wrong, maybe they're not actually reliable. On the other hand, maybe there are reliable sources that respond to the allegations that things were changed and rebut them. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing responding to the allegations outside of social media because a few twitter posts misreading a line aren't noteworthy enough to elicit a response from a reliable source. I'm not to sure where it falls into Wikipedia's policies, but if the sources the user cited are allowed, it would essentially allow any claim to end up on Wikipedia simply by sheer volume, because they're just doing write-ups on Twitter posts from people that are machine translating games and calling any discrepancy bad translation. Also, I think it's relevant that the user is padding the citations with unrelated articles in an attempt to appear more credible - which I think is why WhoAteMyButter self-reverted in Ghostwire: Tokyo after finding out Green Goblin's citations were irrelevant. ("The Washington Post is a reliable source" followed by "selfreversion, different issue"). It is difficult to say these citations were added in good faith, as they were added following criticism of the sources originally cited, and are wholly irrelevant. Narky Sawtooth (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, so it sounds like the issue is that they are trying to use an unreliable source(s?). So that's where the line is--no reliable source = the weight due the argument is nil and the text stays out of the article. I haven't been weighing in on any of the talk pages because I haven't looked at the sources or anything beyond the talk pages themselves. That's what the policy argument is that should be made on the talk pages. I stopped by here, because of the ad hominem. Content issues are plenty enough without dragging something about the other editor into the discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing responding to the allegations outside of social media because a few twitter posts misreading a line aren't noteworthy enough to elicit a response from a reliable source. I'm not to sure where it falls into Wikipedia's policies, but if the sources the user cited are allowed, it would essentially allow any claim to end up on Wikipedia simply by sheer volume, because they're just doing write-ups on Twitter posts from people that are machine translating games and calling any discrepancy bad translation. Also, I think it's relevant that the user is padding the citations with unrelated articles in an attempt to appear more credible - which I think is why WhoAteMyButter self-reverted in Ghostwire: Tokyo after finding out Green Goblin's citations were irrelevant. ("The Washington Post is a reliable source" followed by "selfreversion, different issue"). It is difficult to say these citations were added in good faith, as they were added following criticism of the sources originally cited, and are wholly irrelevant. Narky Sawtooth (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)