TocororoWings

Welcome!

Hi TocororoWings! I noticed your contributions to 2021 Cuban protests and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Raymond3023 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Hello, I'm Rdp060707. I noticed that in this edit to 2021 Cuban protests, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ----Rdp060707|talk 07:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Cuban protests

Your recent editing history at 2021 Cuban protests 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. Longhair\^talk 08:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2021 Cuban protests. 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 ~~~~}}.  Longhair\^talk 20:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hi Longhair

My edits are being reverted even though they are supported by multiple verifiable sources. When edits are controversial, they should be given equal treatment; either remove the content until consensus is reached or allow the content until consensus is reached. Editors should also be given the same treatment under Wikipedia rules.

These discussions take time and the decision of what content remains or stays in the article while these discussions take place should not be left to a few editors/administrators. Wikipedia rules should be equally applied. I am in favor of discussing controversial changes and seeking consensus but controversial pieces of content should be given equal treatment.

In regards to the particular edit being reverted on 2021 Cuban protests: "Freedom" and "Down with the Dictatorship" were the prominent calls of the protestors around Cuba, this is a verifiable fact documented in countless verifiable sources. "Freedom" (plain and simple) should be listed as protestors' goals, and should not be masked away inside umbrella terms (potentially with political motivations). Listing the embargo as a cause of the protests is also contentious and I removed it yesterday for this reason; however, it still remains listed as one of the causes of the July 2021 protests.

I am new to editing Wikipedia and its editing process (and being reverted and blocked); it is a great learning experience and hope to keep learning more about it to make sure future contributions are in line with Wikipedia editing rules.

TocororoWings (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring, which is not acceptable. If others are reverting your edits, it is on you to discuss it on the article talk page. If others are violating rules, there are proper channels to address that, edit warring is not one. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

You were very clearly edit warring despite being provided with a warning not to do so a day or so earlier by myself. Also, stating you have "no plans to discuss it" shows an intention to continue editing in that fashion. Not once was an article talk page used to discuss changes that other editors disagreed with. Another administrator will be along to review your unblock request. -- Longhair\^talk 21:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for facts, and it doesn't seem appropriate to remove a contribution supported by verifiable sources and justify the removal with an opinion. I just made clear my intention not to discuss this user's particular opinion "freedom is so nebulous as to be useless and is covered by "end of Communist rule"". Please let me know if that is a problem, and what is the best way to proceed in those cases.

Maybe a better answer would have been:

"Contentious or disliked material is not a reason (listing the embargo as a cause of the protests is contentious and still included in the article) and does not justify removing content supported on several verifiable sources. "Freedom" is not "nebulous", much less "useless" and if there is one single word that best represents what the Cuban protesters were demanding is "Freedom"."

Please also let me know if controversial content should be removed or left in the article while consensus is reached and what are the rules about controversial content in general.

Thank you,

TocororoWings (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Hi, I feel a little bad for you getting blocked for fighting with me, so I thought I'd come over here to try to clear a few things up. Rather than talking specifically about the content in dispute (that discussion is more suited to Talk:2021 Cuban protests), I'm going to try and talk a little about what you did wrong and how it can be handled better. One of the most important guidelines for editing on wikipedia is WP:BRD, which states that you should be Bold in your edits, which you did. This is a good thing! However, often times other editors may disagree with your edits and Revert them. Typically it is best at this point to step back and move to the articles talk page to Discuss the material in question. However, if you feel the editors reasoning for reverting was spurious (as it seems you did in this case), it can be ok to restore your edit (though it is best to Discuss regardless). At this point if another editor comes in and reverts the content, that can be taken as a clear sign Discussion is needed, and editing should be paused. At this point you are very close to violating WP:3RR which is a hard line for where something stops being a simple content dispute and becomes edit warring. Something to remember is there is WP:NORUSH, it's ok to take our time on deciding what should or should not be in articles, and it improves the quality of the encyclopedia as a whole. There are no direct rules on what is or is not "contentious", but if multiple editors revert your edits, that should be taken as a clear sign that something is questionable about them which means that is the time to talk about it with the editors opposing you, and the place to that is not edit summaries but the talk page. Please feel free to ask questions if you have them about wikipedia policies and best practices, I don't want this rough first experience to scare you off! BSMRD (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

At least 4 different editors were undoing your edits, which clearly indicates your additions require discussion. The advice above is good advice... and as indicated in your unblock request response, there are avenues outside of edit warring to address the issues of controversial edits and content. Your block is only for a 24 hour period, so you'll be back in a day to hopefully take the helpful advice being offered. Edit wars are disruptive, and being disruptive to make your point is not the way we operate here. -- Longhair\^talk 23:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)