User talk:Aoidh

Angelo Rules

Why did you just delete all of those information? Bring it back! Johnny test person (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnny test person: Regarding my removal of that content, information on Wikipedia must be verifiable the level of detail in an article must reflect its prominence in reliable sources. Having that much prose in the article dedicated to unsourced fictional character biographies of each character in the show the article covers is not an appropriate level of detail for the article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I have mentioned the names episodes of the information I wrote. Just watch the episodes again before removing it! Johnny test person (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnny test person: You having watched an episode is not a reliable source, and unless there's coverage of these characters in independent sources then it's an undue level of detail for the article. - Aoidh (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So prove me that my edits are wrong then I will accept it Johnny test person (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, it is you who must demonstrate that the contested and unsourced content belongs in the article, it is not up to others to provide the opposite. I would suggest addressing those issues, as consistently reverting to restore the unsourced content without addressing the issues will not result in the content remaining in the article and may result in being blocked. Repeatedly undoing the edit is not the way to resolve the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I also don‘t understand why you deleted literally everything. I edited only some little parts. And only today. Before that the whole information were there. Explain why? Johnny test person (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Because all of it is unsourced and is an inappropriate level of detail for the article, and has been for quite a while. I removed it today because I saw it today. - Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that I have started a discussion on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Block evasion

We are still having a problem with User:C.monarchist28 editing/edit waring their favorite page.... using multiple IPS day after day as seen here.

We are fully aware that this IP is them. And all the rest of the IP's are from Vancouver British Columbia using Rogers communications. Wondering if the best thing to do is to simply lock up Canadian ethnicity this page too IP's overdoing investigations for every IP that keeps popping up. Moxy🍁 04:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page and reverted their other edits. - Aoidh (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:BITE Edit warring a particular editor without further Consensus

"I've been facing difficulties with a particular editor on Wikipedia. They have a habit of removing well-sourced content from articles, particularly Lovely Runner and Byeon Woo-seok, without seeking consensus from the community. When I revert their edits, they often respond by tagging my account with Ultraviolet Rollback multiple times. I'm concerned that this behavior is disruptive to the collaborative editing process and would like to find a way to resolve this issue." Puchicatos (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aoidh How lovely to have WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:PERSONALATTACKS to start 2025. On Lovely Runner, my edit that removed "Material that fails verification be removed" per WP:VERIFY with "WP:VERIFY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH" in the edit summary however so lovely we have this edit by our dear editor that apparently by following VERIFY, OR, SYNTH was ASPERSIONS as "WP:BITE [and not assuming] WP:FAITH"??? On the same article, the inline citation 48 nor 49 doesn't explicity stated that it's awarded for Lovely Runner either, further evidencing that my edit was aligned with Wikipedia's policies. On List of awards and nominations received by Byeon Woo-seok, believed to be related to this discussion which our dear editor couldn't give me any acceptable neutral explanation to restore their preferred layout and also likely related to this edit reverting their incorrect updates to the Infobox's count by going against the documentation. In addition, rather perplexing that it was such a thing to discuss first for non-controversial edits when the edits made were per WP:BOLD and didn't requires WP:CONSENSUS. Lastly, where exactly was the ASPERSIONSly the WP:3RR violations and/or "edit warring" violation on either articles??? — 🎉🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎉 (🔔 • 📝) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've been busy the past day and will continue to be for the next few days, @Puchicatos: Without commenting on the merits of anything as I haven't looked deeply into any of this, I would suggest speaking with User:Paper9oll directly, and if you two are unable to resolve the issue, dispute resolution may be warranted. I would recommend a venue like WP:ANI as a last resort if this is a conduct (rather than a content) issue that cannot be resolved by discussing it with the editor. - Aoidh (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm focused on resolving a content issue regarding the "Lovely Runner" article. There's an ongoing discussion at Talk Page: Lovely Runner, and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look when you have a moment. Puchicatos (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Puchicatos: I apologize but the time that I have to dedicate to Wikipedia is currently occupied with another matter, but it looks like other editors have also weighed in at Talk:Lovely Runner#Proposed restoration of Lovely Runner awards data. Dispute resolution is available if needed. - Aoidh (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)