User talk:Rolesafter1

Edit war[edit]

Your recent editing history 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.

Note as well that an edit war can also occur if you make 3 reverts over 3 days. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to read wp:spa and wp:COI do yu have one with the video producers? Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest, just an interest in updating the page to reflect on relevant information. Are you demonstrating the same bias as Magnolia677 has blatantly done over the past few weeks? They have admitted to improperly researching the source and has willfully misinterpreted talk page discussion, as well as has repeatedly undone edits on the Valley View page. Yet I don't see you warning them about an edit war. I would reflect upon your own edits, instead of making thinly-veiled threats. Rolesafter1 (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:npa ansd wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to why I did not warn them, A they are not an SPA, thus (as they did not breach 3RR there was no need to warn them, but as you are an SPA it was necessary to warn you to step back before you got a ban (at least in part for wp:not). As well as pointing out one or two other things you need to know. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to familiarize yourself with wp:agf as well. Rolesafter1 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ONUS, and stop edit warringSlatersteven (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:AGF, WP:ETN, WP:DONTREVERT and stop edit warring. Rolesafter1 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will I have to ask for PP, or will you stop until you get consensus? Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus exists in favor of inclusion. I believe your messages, such as unfounded accusations of conflict of interest and threatening banning, are in violation of policies such as WP:ETN and WP:BITE when I am trying to edit the page to best reflect Talk Page discussion and relevant information. I recommend familiarizing yourself with these policies, especially WP:BITE, so you can contribute to a healthier environment on this website in the future. Rolesafter1 (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bite is why I have not yet reported you .Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are familiar with WP:BITE, then speak to me more respectfully. I apologize for coming off as strongly as I did, but with your immediate messages threatening a ban as well as trying to infer a personal relationship with the video creators, I felt I had no other choice but to respond similarly. I am just trying to update the page to best reflect Talk Page consensus. I am still a new user and I'm trying my best to navigate this website and edit in a way I believe reflects Wikipedia's commitment to honesty and good faith. Rolesafter1 (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not threaten to ban you, I cannot ban you, I left a standard warning that you might have been about to breach policy, and that such actions can lead to bans. As your only edit here was this video (and remains), and you seem oddly attached to adding it, it was reasonable to ask if you had a connection to it. If you can't see any of this as reasonable then at some point you will get a ban, but not from me. You need to read our policies and understand them, not make wp:point edits to fight your corner. My last word here, as I am in danger of badgering you, behave or be banned, your choice. Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I extended an invitation for us to speak on more conciliatory and constructive terms, but you continue to speak condescendingly and defensively. I do consider this badgering, and if you cannot speak to me with respect then do not comment on my Talk Page again. I hope you learn to approach new users with more grace moving forward. Rolesafter1 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PP it is. Slatersteven (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Rolesafter1, I think you've misread the room regarding consensus on the talk page. What I see is a consensus that a reliable secondary source is needed to establish notability. The YouTube link is primary, of course, and only establishes that the movie exists. Some offered support for inclusion because the film served to draw much attention to the mall; but I haven't seen that statement supported with a secondary source. My two cents. _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense, thanks for clarifying. I thought the secondary source requirement was only stated by one user (with the two who replied acknowledging it was a good point but still siding with the video already being included due to its popularity either in their reply or in other parts of the thread). I understand now that the secondary source requirement is an actual site-mandated requirement, not just a single Talk Page recommendation. Will leave it be until a reliable secondary source emerges. Rolesafter1 (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to George Armstrong Custer did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! --David Tornheim (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! That's a useful feature. Rolesafter1 (talk) 07:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]