User talk:Yetsnaz

Yetsnaz, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yetsnaz! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like RhinosF1 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Otoya Yamaguchi. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred What I am doing is not edit warring. What I'm doing is making sure the page in question follows basic writing guidelines on neutrality. There's a group of editors who keep undoing my corrections. Yetsnaz (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits do not qualify for any of the exceptions to WP:3RR. This is a content dispute, so yes, you are edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.FredFrom the "Edit Warring" page in the section on exceptions: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Clearly labeled under the exceptions section. Calling the club a hate group is indeed libelous. What you're doing is asinine and counterproductive to ensuring the most correct information is available on wikipedia.Yetsnaz (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point about "hate group" being over the top. However, "men's club" goes entirely the other direction. You may be better served discussing the matter at the talk page to see if middle ground like "right-wing group" or the like can be endorsed by a consensus of editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no discussion to be had, just denying the changes from happening. You appear to be the only one actually discussing it C.Fred. It is exactly a men's club. There is no argument to be had there. It is absolutely the most neutral descriptor that can be used. If neutrality isn't the objective than I'll stop arguing my point. Otherwise allow me to make the appropriate changes to restore neutrality.Yetsnaz (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about your new user page?

I have made a new user page for you, and it's a nice message! Calvinkulit (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]