User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993

December 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mark Rylance, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 21:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Mark Rylance. General Ization ^Talk 21:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• General Ization, I appreciate this is a template message, but next time, please don’t post something saying I didn’t leave a rationale when there was one left. I’m removing a BLP violation from the article - someone trying to claim something unsupported by the sources they are claiming. As it’s both BLP and BRD, my actions are correct. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

“without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary”. Twice you’ve accused me of that and twice you have been wrong. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You've now twice removed citations from the article. If you think there is content that is uncited, the appropriate action would be to a) add a template to indicate same, b) remove the uncited content and/or c) discuss on the article Talk page, not to remove citations from the article. If you do so again, I will request you be immediately blocked from editing. Do you understand? General Ization ^Talk 21:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• General Ization? I guess you need to re-read WP:BLP again. I am removing a BLP violation that was recently added. BLP and BRD are both in play here. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And since you again removed the citations after the warning above, I have requested you be blocked as promised. You can discuss it with the blocking admin. General Ization ^Talk 21:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You also should review our policy on edit warring and the three revert rule, since it appears that you have now made effectively the same edit 6 times using IP addresses that I believe are related. General Ization ^Talk 21:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

General Ization, you really need to re-read WP:BLP: “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (Emphasis in the original). This was pointed out several times to you, but you have ignored it for some reason. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That would explain your initial removal. However, another editor located a source that they believed supported the content and added it. You are asserting that it did not adequately support the content, but that is the point at which you initiate a discussion on the Talk page, not repeatedly remove both the content and the sources based purely on your assessment of the sources. General Ization ^Talk 21:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The issue, IP, is that consensus is against you on this. Most things like this are subjective, what counts as "enough" sourcing or "poor" sourcing etc. In this case, it should be clear to you that multiple others disagree with your view. The thing to do in such an instance is to go to the talk page when your BOLD action is reverted. Not to continue reinstating it just because you firmly believe you are right. Everyone believes they are right. See also: WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, even if you think your removal is justified and the warning is unwarranted, removing the content again after receiving a final warning, as you did, is an invitation to be blocked for disruptive editing. General Ization ^Talk 21:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are both wrong in thought and deed on this. The very long held STATUS QUO was without the claim by an American editor that Rylance was an American. Not smart behaviour to try and claim it, nor to use misleading claims and dubious sources to create a BLP violation. The request for blocking was rejected, which may give you pause for thought on your actions. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:7D16:A849:4BD3:B993 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see that the AIV report was removed without action or comment. I find this interesting and will discuss independently with the admin who took that action, but that being the case, please continue the discussion on the article Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 22:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)