Talk:Tupac Shakur

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2024

I am the biological daughter of Tupac shakur I have verified X and Instagram accounts @lisajanehargreaves and I also have my medical records confirming my blood results. I am of African American origin. Lisa jane Hargreaves (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Please note that social media accounts are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia. If you are asking to be mentioned in the page we would need independent reliable sources, such as news articles, confirming your relation to Tupac. Jamedeus (talk) 19:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• Lisa jane Hargreaves Thank you for coming forward and immediately declaring your relationship and WP:COI per the guidelines. I look forward to hearing your edit request(s). --David Tornheim (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Song writer

This is a continuation of the discussion here and here. Based on my review of sources, Tupac is indeed a song-writer and that should be in the WP:LEDE. I believe it has been in the LEDE for quite sometime, so the removal is not justified.--David Tornheim (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why is this not in the lead of every hip-hop artist that writes their own songs? The Notorious B.I.G., Jay-Z, Nas, Eminem. I have looked up multiple artists and do not see this in the lead of their articles. Why is it for Tupac's article in particular and not these other artists? They should be edited for uniformity was my argument. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked up Notorious B.I.G. and this category certainly indicates to me that he was a song-writer. So I agree with you that article should probably say so too. It's all about what the WP:RS says. I did a google search and it appears to me that Tupac wrote many or most of his own songs. this category also supports the claim. It is mentioned in the WP:BODY, which should be fleshed out to say more about Tupac's song-writing. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologize to both editors for engaging in the edit war. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia rules and shouldn't have been aggressive in my approach. This is the last I will post about it. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Darrencdm1988: Thanks for the apology. You can continue to discuss any concerns you have about the article here on the article talk page. But it should be grounded in the WP:RS. Also, I did look at Notorious B.I.G. and it lists his occupation as "songwriter". I do know you are a new editor and I appreciate you acknowledging that. There are indeed a lot of rules here and many seem to contradict each other. If you have any questions feel free to ask me or any other experienced editor, or ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion #1 on user talk page that should probably be here instead

This is a continuation of the discussion here:

I disagree with your reasoning and will continue to remove songwriter from the lead. Just because he wrote his own songs does not mean it was a "main occupation" of his or should be considered an occupation that he made money from. You're saying the fact other music artists don't have this in the lead of their article doesn't matter, and I also disagree. So therefore until settled by another editor, this will be considered an edit war because I will continue to remove your edits. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand one thing: but what does it change to you if it says songwriter or not? It's been months since it wrote songwriter and no one has complained. So do we need to remove songwriters from all artist pages? Why shouldn't Tupac be written? Pier1999 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Before edit war, let's discuss. No need for an edit war. I want to understand why on Tupac's page there can't be written songwriter, this is written in the lead of many artists. Why can't Tupac be written? What's different for you? Tupac is considered one of the best songwriters in the history of music, Eminem considers him the greatest songwriter ever, Nas said in an interview that Tupac was better than Shakespeare. Songwriter is written in the lead of many pop stars whose lyrics are quite banal and do not have the literary complexity of Tupac's. Pier1999 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Every hip hop artist I have researched that wrote their own songs does not have this in the lead. Tupac did not write songs for other artists that I know of, so it shouldn't be considered an occupation he profited from much less a main occupation of his. Eminem, Notorious B.I.G., Jay-Z, Nas etc. would all have to be changed to suit your whims of adding this in the lead on Tupac's article. That's how I see it. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Songwriter doesn't just mean who writes songs for others, it also means who writes their own songs. For example, on the page of Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West and Lil Wayne it is written. Why shouldn't it be written in Tupac's? For example, on the page of Bono of U2 and Nina Simone, there is also an activist in the lead. Yet these are not two of their main activities, they are above all artists. Why should only Tupac's page say only rapper? When he was also a poet, activist, songwriter and actor. Pier1999 (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not about tantrums, so according to your reasoning we have to take away songwriter from Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West and Lil Wayne as well. Right? Pier1999 (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, following your reasoning then we should take Songwriter off the lead of all the rappers who have it because Jay-Z, Eminem and Biggie don't have that in the lead. Wikipedia should be an information site, not a personal information site. When I've edited the lead several times, the admins have praised my edits, so songwriter needs to be written. Your reasoning has nothing to do with it, so if we take away songwriters from Tupac, we have to take it away from all artists. Pier1999 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Until settled, this will be an indefinite edit war. That's the end of it from my perspective. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This was not in the lead of the article until you added it recently. It's your opinion only. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually not true, it has been in the lead of the article for at least two months and a few days ago it was removed. Check the changes Pier1999 (talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tupac's article was created in 2005, so it is true that it was added recently. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So, precisely it was added by me 26 days ago and was removed for the first time yesterday. You can check the changes to the page. Pier1999 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

As I stated, it was not in the lead of the article until you added it recently. It is your opinion only. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2005. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It was actually written before, even years ago, then it was changed several times. First it was written on the page that Tupac was a symbol of activism against inequality and then it was removed. In the past other people had written songwriters, you can go into the edits. It was actually written before, even years ago, then it was changed several times. First it was written on the page that Tupac was a symbol of activism against inequality and then it was removed. In the past other people had written songwriters, you can go into the edits. It was actually written before, even years ago, then it was changed several times. First it was written on the page that Tupac was a symbol of activism against inequality and then it was removed. In the past other people had written songwriter, you can go into the edits. Pier1999 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Then we have a disagreement on whether it belongs in the lead of the article. Simple as that. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, basically Tupac's lead is always changing, it changes every six months. While the other artists' leads always remain the same, which is a strange thing. Then there are often edit wars on the page. That said, what does it make to you if songwriter is written in the lead or not? At least that should be written, other artists have written all the occupations in the lead, even if they are secondary occupations. Pier1999 (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim I ask you to intervene because there is a user here who is making an edit war. Remove songwriter from Tupac's lead just because in his personal opinion he shouldn't be put. When in reality Tupac is considered one of the best songwriters ever Pier1999 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I had to tag an admin because you're making edit wars and editing a page that doesn't make any sense. According to your logic, Kendrick Lamar and Lil Wayne should also be stripped of songwriter in the lead. Pier1999 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You are willfully engaging in an edit war as well. Don't put it off on me and act like you are not playing a part. That's what this entire thing is about, really. You are acting like your opinion is supreme. I have never noticed this in the lead before and have been editing this article for years, so if it was there before I am not the only one who has removed it. Others disagree with you as well. Darrencdm1988 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

--END OF DISCUSSION #1 COPIED FROM USER TALK PAGE--

Copied here by --David Tornheim (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussion #2 on user talk page that should probably be here instead

This is a continuation of the discussion here:

Hi, I saw that you took songwriter out of Tupac's lead and added actor. Actor is not one of Tupac's most important occupations, while songwriter is. Also because songwriter is about his music, his main activity. It's okay as it says. There is no need to change the lead. His main activity was music, not being an actor. Actor is already reported in the occupations part. The fact that it's not written in the beginning to other artists has nothing to do with it, songwriter is one of Tupac's main occupations and it has to do with his music. Songwriters and rappers are the two main occupations, so they must remain so. Actor is a secondary occupation. As we have already written in several threads on this page. I don't see what it has to do with the fact that they didn't write it to other artists, so we should take songwriters away from all artists.Pier1999 (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

--END OF DISCUSSION #2 COPIED FROM USER TALK PAGE--

Copied here by --David Tornheim (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

AI Tupac voice generator

Don't know if this is important enough to mention, but there's a web page that can be used to have Tupac's voice dubbed: [1] I don't see how he can have given his permission for his voice to be used, but maybe his heirs did. WiseWoman (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@WiseWoman: Probably would need to be mentioned in WP:RS to justify including any mention of it in the article. Sometimes external links are included in a special section at the end of articles, as is the case with this one: Tupac_Shakur#External_links. Because of potential copyright infringement, I would be against inclusion. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, please note that according to our article Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright: 'Copyright protection generally lasts for 70 years after the death of the author. If the work was a "work for hire", then copyright persists for 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is shorter.' However, as a paralegal--I am not an attorney and cannot give legal advice--Wikipedia is not a reliable source on law. There are better sources online and law does change and is often complicated by case law that can even vary by jurisdiction. Law libraries are good resources, but in the end if you want proper legal advice, you need to see an attorney who specializes in the appropriate field. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

personal interpretations

@HumansRightsIsCool https://theconversation.com/in-tupacs-life-the-struggles-and-triumphs-of-a-generation-79266 "Moviegoers this summer have enjoyed “All Eyez on Me,” the biopic of Tupac Shakur, one of the most iconic and influential musicians of the 20th century." Articles written by Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar, professor of history and popular music at the University of Connecticut. The article describes Tupac as one of the most influential musical artists of the 20th century, does not mention "one of the African-American artists." You have to stick to the sources Pier1999 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I just added a source which said he's one of the most influential black artists. Now I'm sticking to sources. Being black was a big part of tupacs career, he rapped about it, talked about it tons of times and was an activist for his own people, the fact that nowhere in this article says he's black is crazy HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

So I read the article you wrote, but it's not as authoritative a source as the article written by Jeffrey O.G. Ogbar. He does not report that he is one of the most influential African-American musical artists, but one of the most famous ones. However, your source does not delete an article written by an academic. Pier1999 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The article you cited is not written by an academic, while the one I cited months ago is written by one of America's leading academics in history and popular music. Also, as already written, it only reports that 2pac is one of the most famous African-American artists ever. I don't read influential writing. That said, a different source doesn't delete an authoritative source, I recommend you read the Wikipedia rules. Pier1999 (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course there are rules. You can contact the administrators to have them explain it to you. Anyway I removed Gangsta rap in the lead, because it's already mentioned in the music genres and on the page. I don't understand why Tupac's lead has to have changes every week... Pier1999 (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

• @HumansRightsIsCool: Yes, Wikipedia has a few rules called policies and guidelines. I explain on your talk page here: User_talk:HumansRightsIsCool#Yes._There_are_rules.... And FYI. I'm not an admin. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. I'll read it to make sure I don't break any rules HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Gangsta rap in the lead

@Cena332 In my opinion it is useless to write that in the final part of his career he did Gangsta rap, it is already written on the page. Otherwise we would have to write in the lead that he was a political and conscious rapper. But it's useless, it's already written in the genres and on the page Pier1999 (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cena332 In fact, I'll write more: most of 2pac's songs are political rap and conscious rap songs, only in the final part of his career did he do Gangsta rap. So it would be more appropriate to write political rap and conscious rap in the lead. Or write both political rap and gangsta rap. (As it is written in the Ice Cube lead for example). Pier1999 (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is already written in the contents of the article that he addressed say for example social injustice; but it's still included in the lead. I don't see a problem with including Gangsta rap respectively. He also did do gangsta rap before Death Row; (but when he got to Death Row it escalated) but yes he did had socially conscious songs like Keep Ya Head Up. I think this is already addressed in the lead by "His lyrical content has been noted for addressing social injustice, political issues and the marginalization of African-Americans". Cena332 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

African-americans or black americans in the lead

Okay, but let's write African-Americans then? Or do we leave black Americans? Pier1999 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll let you and HumansRightsIsCool discuss that, because that wasn't my issue. Cena332 (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've sent him a invite. Hopefully he responds. Cena332 (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ok, thanks Pier1999 (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't matter If it says "African-Americans" or "black Americans" they're pretty much the same thing. Most African-Americans are considering black and most people considered black around the globe have African ancestors HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why i wrote black americans and replaced African-Americans HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

sorry In my first message i meant "considered" not "considering" HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Lead

@Confunxion There is no need to write in the lead: "one of the hip hop artists of his generation", because it is already written: "one of the most influential rappers of all time." Let's avoid repetitions that can lead to edit wars. Pier1999 (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cena332 it should say Tupac is African American in the lead HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I would stick to the sources as Wikipedia's rules indicate; but i would like to get editors, ActionHeroesAreReal and Confuxtion involved so we can reach a consensus going forward. Cena332 (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

what action heros wants is "the source says African American, not people in the black community." He thinks we should copy sources word for word which is probably against wikipedia rules. And why does Confuxtion need to get involved? He was only complaining because the lead mentioned "African American" twice, so I wrote "people in the black community" so it wouldn't say the words "African American" twice, that was his only problem HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

also tell me how my edits don't follow sources HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Rappers; Biggie Smalls, Nas and Jay-Z leads do not start out as they are "African-American rappers". It’s that they are "American rappers". 2Pac we know he is African-American, you can see that in the Infobox, This doesn’t need to be self-explained, Your making to much of an issue out of this over nothing. --Cena332 (talk) 01:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It should say Tupac is African American because it's relevant to his music. I don't think Jay z raps about being black HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Tupac was a more conscious and political rapper than Jay-Z, but Jay-Z also made political/conscious rap songs. Pier1999 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I never listened to Jay-Z before. Only people I listen to is Eazy E, Biggie, and Tupac. Eminem is trash, Drake is trash, Kendrick is trash, youngboy is trash. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Remove Makaveli as stage name

I suggest removing Makaveli as a stage name from the lead, and keep it in the other names section; as he never performed under the name Makaveli. Tupac's last concert was The House of Blues on July 4, 1996, and there he was still introduced as 2Pac. Cena332 (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed puffery and original research in the lede

None of the sources cited imply that academics regard him as one of the most influential music artists of the 20th century and also a politically conscious activist voice for Black America. This is clear puffery; also, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. Tupac is also not notable for being talked about among “academics”. ActionHeroesAreReal (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

All the sources @Pier1999 linked are from academics, one is from Harvard. And they describe Tupac as one of the biggest hip hop artists of the 20th century, literally says that in the sources, that's not puffery, it's the facts. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Also you're removing other information that was sourced too. Your deleting random sentences from all over the article because apparently you're not a fan of Tupac and you don't want the article to say that he's one of the most influential rappers, despite that's what sources say. That's not puffery or false praise, that's not praise at all that's literally what sources say. And you're violating the "Wikipedia:Tendentious editing" policy. The policy states "Tendentious editing is a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view. It may also involve repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors". Your deleting important info because you don't like tupac. You're violating that policy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

and why do you keep removing the word "other" in the lead. Tupac was also African American himself. That's why it says "the marginalization of other African Americans", now you're just removing content from the page just because you feel like it, even when it's sourced and notable. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

He has done this before, when I had written activist in the lead and decided to remove it by his personal will without any consent. But in that case I let it be, now I realize that he doesn't know who Tupac was at all, practically there are academic studies about him everywhere in the world. I have also contacted various academics, it is really a strange situation. Anyway until he has someone's consent, he cannot edit the page, if not it will be edit war. Pier1999 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Not true, the cited sources widely mention Tupac as one of the most influential artists of the 21st century and as a politically aware activist voice for black America. Tupac is not worthy of academic mention? Have you even read the whole page? There's a section devoted to his academic evaluation, plus I have plenty of other academic sources. I will tell you more, I have directly contacted many academics who teach courses on Tupac all over the world. My sources are unlimited. You obviously don't know Tupac Pier1999 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Is Tupac not worth mentioning among academics? Basically in 'Legacy and remembrance', there is the 'Academic appraisal' part. Ahahahhah, you're acting this way because you don't like Tupac. Is Tupac not worth mentioning among academics? Basically in 'Legacy and remembrance', there is the 'Academic appraisal' part. Ahahahhah, you're acting this way because you don't like Tupac. However I have unlimited academic sources on Tupac, the sources cited are from the University of Oslo, Harvard University, an article in The Conversation where an academic (Jeffrey Og ogbar), defines Tupac as one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. The article, on the other hand, from cbc Canada, where Jeffrey Og ogbar's opinion is again quoted, as well as that of Kevin Powell, an activist and professional writer. Did you read the sources or are you joking? Pier1999 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In practice, you are deleting things from the page by your own will, not by anything else. In the sources mentioned there is the opinion of academics, instead of removing the sources, start reading the cited articles. By the way, on Tupac's English Wikipedia page there is even a section called "Academic appraisal", precisely because he is the subject of study among academics. Lol Pier1999 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You will not receive anyone's consent, I and everyone who edits the page agree to write these things. So stop editing them, you are just doing edit war because you probably don't know Tupac well. Even some administrators have written to me that the sources I quoted are good. Yours is just edit war, 'Tupac is not noteworthy to be mentioned among academics', in the Wikipedia english page instead there is a section dedicated to his academic evaluation. But why do you edit this page if you know nothing about Tupac? I repeat: you don't have anyone's consent, the sources quoted are largely what it says, and I have contacted many academics directly. Stop with these edit wars Pier1999 (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Until you have someone's consent, you cannot edit the page. It's crazy that you started deleting parts of the article without reading the sources at all. It's crazy that you started deleting parts of the article without reading the sources at all. And you keep writing that there are no sources reporting this, when in fact the sources clearly write that thing. You write that Tupac is not noteworthy for being mentioned among academics when his page even has a section reporting his academic evaluation. You know nothing about Tupac, you have been trying to belittle his character for months without any sense. Besides, I have directly contacted academics from all over the world, I can even link you their social profiles directly if you want. It's a crazy situation lol Pier1999 (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Tupac's Wikipedia page is not a personal space, if you want to edit something you must first have someone's consent. For now you don't have consent, I and many others agree to keep the page that way. If you have consent you can edit, otherwise there will be an edit war. Pier1999 (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

However, you are arguing with a person who will have at least 200 academic articles on Tupac and who has contacted academics all over the world. My changes have been approved by everyone, including the administrators. Your behaviour is completely impartial and I repeat: without any consent, according to Wikipedia rules, you cannot continue to edit the page. Pier1999 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the thousands of posts, but I am at a loss as to how one can write that Tupac is not worthy of being mentioned among academics when he is the subject of academic study all over the world, and in fact in all his Wikipedia pages in any language his academic evaluation is mentioned. Anyway, that's the end of the story, until you get consent you can't remove those parts of the page. Pier1999 (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You make a compelling point. With 200 academic articles on Tupac under your belt and having received approval from administrators and academics worldwide, your expertise and authority in this matter are undeniable. I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the integrity of the Tupac article HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Whole lot of issues here.

• @ActionHeroesAreReal: -- do not continue to vandalize the article by making undiscussed removals of sourced content without consensus. Your claims of "original research" are inappropriate given the reliable sourcing of the content you're removing. Do not edit war further on this article.
• @Pier1999: --your academic credentials are irrelevant here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and they need no titles, qualifications, or expertise to do so. Your behavior above is a gross display of ownership over an article -- you do not have any authority to tell someone that they may not edit a page without your consent, nor are you entitled to use your personal credentials as a bludgeon in an argument. Additionally, your spamming of several comments in a row is aggressive and unhelpful. Knock it off.

Neither of you are exemplifying the behavior we expect of editors. If it continues, there *will* be sanctions against the editors involved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely apologize, how can I go back to edit the page? Pier1999 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do that, I just wrote those things because I put a lot of discretion in editing articles, I understand I did wrong, but I can help make the page better. I would like to go back to being able to edit the page, how can I do that? Pier1999 (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

At the moment, you can't; I have protected the page so that only administrators can edit it due to the persistent edit warring. Use this time to make yourselves familiar with our policies and to discuss proposed edits on the talk page. When the protection expires, the page will become editable again. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pier1999 you didn't do anything wrong. Me and you stopped constant vandalism on this page HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@HumansRightsIsCool: -- I should note that you are edit warring and in violation of the 3RR on this article, with at least 5 reverts within the past 24 hours. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Content disputes are not vandalism, and are not exemptions to the edit warring policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I was only reverting because there was tons of vandalism on the page HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Content disputes are not vandalism", aren't they though when someone removes tons of sourced info from the page without explanation? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

According to policy: On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. and Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. -- from Wikipedia:Vandalism ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)