User talk:Lightningwhitefox

July 2024[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Hanni (singer), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did make a mistake, That article is misleading especially from a Korean new source that doens't know Australian laws. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hanni (singer). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruh, you're the one who is not reading the summary comments. Are you vietnamese Australia like me? She can't have dual nationality if you are an Australian nationality. She has an Australian passport. She can't 'have both. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hanni (singer), you may be blocked from editing. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/economics_ctte/estimates/sup_1516/Treasury/answers/SBT148-150_Ludwig_Attachment.pdf

read that.. She is only an Australian citzen. Not dual. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hanni (singer). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Hanni (singer) 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; read about 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lightningwhitefox reported by User:Btspurplegalaxy (Result: ). Thank you. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Hanni (singer). 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In new to wikipedia but I wanted to remove false information about my favourite kpop singer as I am also Australian Vietnamese like her. So I made an edit but they authors rolled back without giving good reasons. I made a talk topic on that page. But they just undo my changes. When they have no factual evidence that Hanni is dual citizenship. What is the best approach to remove the incorrect information and cited reference that is also misinformation. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically BTSpurplegalaxy reported me when he undo my changes 3 times. I just edited twice and rolled back his changes. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn’t they get a ban as well? Lightningwhitefox (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightningwhitefox: It's because the method you used to determine that Hanni isn't a dual national; by looking up registrars and determing what "must be" or "cannot be" based on your own knowledge; is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Further, you were given multiple sources that all support the fact that she is a dual national on the talk page. No comment on whether BTSpurplegalaxy could have or should have been mutually blocked for edit warring as well, but you cannot continue to edit war when the concerns you've left on the talk page as justification for it have been addressed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 13:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But that Korean article is misleading and incorrect. Based it doesn’t give evidence that she is a dual nationality. Just states it as its fact when its not. Since nationals means that they have lived there. Hanni has never lived in Vietnam. However. Since I am ban. I can not dispute this misinformation spread. Its more common sense than depending on articles published by entertainment journalists that can make anything up. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But Im super new to wikipedia and don’t know the rules. So question. How do you prove that the article source is false? When this kinda of information is speculated at best by fans. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 13:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300 fyi - The concerns have been addressed after their last edit to the page, and after their ban. --- Though they make clear how they were wrong.

@Lightningwhitefox The point is that it's sourced, and that there are no contrary sources. The only way to prove otherwise is to find a source that states it. (And while there may be "speculation" on fanforums, that kind of uncertainty is often artificial. JackTheSecond (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will try contacting the author of that article to find out where she got her source from. Since most of the Vietnamese articles states that she ethnicity is Vietnamese but never states that shes a Vietnamese national. If the country that suppose she is a national of states shes of Vietnamese background rather than from Vietnam. Sourced from a Vietnamese professor of international affairs from the university of Melbourne, cites two Vietnamese articles. https://theconversation.com/backlash-against-k-pop-star-hanni-shows-vietnam-still-struggles-with-the-legacy-of-the-war-200493

These two Vietnamese articles never mention shes a national but a person of Vietnamese heritage. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JackTheSecond Sourced article that doesn’t cites it’s sources. So how do we verify if the source is true or not? At least we can confirm she’s Australian as she can been seen in videos holding an Australian passport. search on youtube newjeans departure for Japan gimpo airport 221228

so shouldn’t concrete examples be published and not speculated sources Lightningwhitefox (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't require that the articles we source themselves need to provide their sources. If they do their own original research, that's good for them; it's just that you, as a Wikipedia article writer, are prohibited from doing the same yourself. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 14:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s because in Asia, especially Korea and Japan which a homogeneous countries. They would confuse between nationality and ethnicity. So how can the sources be correct? So basically. Shouldnt the article only publish information that is true with actual evidence from sources that shows evidence. So basically wikipedia is built on lies as long its sourced somewhere and a random article written by someone with no evidence. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read wp:rightgreatwrongs. JackTheSecond (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason why you have talk page access right now is so that you can appeal your block as described in your block notice. If you're going to use it instead to tell us how our sourcing requirements are inheriently flawed or we're all liars or whatever, then quite frankly, your talk page access should be revoked. So, it's your decision; write a convincing unblock request that shows you understand what edit warring is and how you'll attempt to avoid getting into them in the future, or simply sit and wait out the week. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 15:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDragonFire300: This is not helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, it was my attempt to summarise WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS at 1 AM in Brisbane. I'll strike it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 15:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: TDF300 removed the material I complained about; they didn't strike it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was another sleep-deprived mistake, sorry; I decided a removal was better given the nature of discussion. Luckily, it's 7 AM now. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning about wikipedia and absolutely trying to understand it. It’s strength and weakness. So absolutely wikipedia has its flaws. Based on these interactions. I can tell some of the users on here aren’t very nice either. But I don’t care whoever you are. All I care is that the actual factual information is available. Especially when some people regards that any misinformation out there spreads like wildfire. Well, I also didn’t know this user talk pages was to appeal the ban. Like I said. My initial edit was undone because of unjustified reason where there was no discussion etc. just undos. So I thought that was the pattern. Now I know about the 3 strike policy and talk page on the article. Lightningwhitefox (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia takes time and interest to get the hang of. On editing articles like Hanni (singer), you should also be aware of WP:Biographies of living persons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]