Talk:Nubia (DC Comics)

Nu'Bia section 2nd paragraph un-revert
Benicio2020, I am curious just exactly how the paragraph I added yesterday that you unilaterally deleted without discussing first (quite a "no-no" combination of actions) meets the definition of "original research"? If you are going to make that claim, you will need to demonstrate that. I merely took information that was already existing either within the article or within one article already linked-to on navigation templates at the bottom of the article and made a relevant point on the article page. The last stated pre-Crisis appearance and first stated post-Crisis appearances of Nubia were already detailed in this article, so my stating that gap in the publishing history of the character doesn't come anywhere remotely near to qualifying as original research. I also mentioned and linked to a relevant character, and that character's first-appearance history was already detailed on that character's article page, which directly supports the very simple statement that I made. If you have any problems with these claims, then you are more than welcome to try to find evidence to contradict them, which is your job as an editor. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read Verifiability, and pay particular attention to the sentence "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." It doesn't get any clearer than that. Any material in this article that is unsourced will be removed. If you have a source for any of it, feel free to add that source when you re-add material. Benicio2020 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I am becoming increasingly comfortable and confident in my edits. I am also becoming increasingly comfortable with being able to make a claim of you engaging in an edit war in a deletionist-style manner.


 * To begin with, your original deletion of my *entire* edit was a claim of it being original research, yet you failed to articulate any specifics about that and ignored how my edit was based on already-sourced material that was already in the article (moreover, I also provided evidence that it was not original research). Additionally, in your first response to me, you quoted Verifiability with the quote "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed", but even with application of that statement, you 1) made the mistake of failing to recognize that my edit was, indeed, based on already-sourced material within the article and; 2) probably did not pay close enough attention to a key term in that short quote - "may".  The quote does not state "MUST be removed" or "SHOULD be removed" - it merely says "MAY be removed".  That does not give somebody carte-blanche permission to delete whatever they want on Wikipedia for whatever reason they want.  A continued pursuit of this, especially against the same material from the same editor, with reasons that 1) change and 2) are not very rooted in much specificity or good reason, looks really bad on the part of the instigator (in this instance - you).


 * In this most recent reversion of yours, some of the material you deleted, you articulate a reason here on my talkpage for doing so, yet other material you reverted/deleted *for no stated reason, whatsoever*. Additionally, there are two problems with your stated purpose for reverting/deleting my recent addition - "a primary source and not something that can be used to support your personal opinions":   1) primary sources are not categorically disallowed from Wikipedia and 2) you fail to demonstrate having consulted the source yourself so that you can even offer a difference of opinion.  (Edited to add:  Not even an hour-and-a-half went by between my making that edit and you 1) deleting some material for no stated reason, whatsoever, and 2) making a deletion without any demonstration of consulting a source to determine its relevancy).


 * Also, by questioning my edits, as well as the reliability of both my edits and the reliability and relevancy of multiple sources, you open to door to making an edit war personal. I did respond to your revisions/reversions of my first edit, but not your revisions/reversions of my second and third edits (because I would rather do the work and get something accomplished rather than arguing about it) - in your revisions/reversions of my second and third edits, a *number* of questions arise as to the legitimacy of your revisions/reversions, and those can potentially be catalogued and added up against your favor in a Dispute resolution.  This is my last warning to you before I initiate one of those.QuakerIlK (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Launch a dispute resolution, whatever you want. You're inserting unsourced opinions of your own. You are sourcing them to a comic book. No editor is going to support those additions. It's ridiculous. Benicio2020 (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You have repeatedly made reverts that delete the material in question without showing any evidence that you have consulted the source. As per your editorial responsibilities, you "h[ave] the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content."  You have made numerous reversions/deletions of the material in question without any demonstration whatsoever, EVER, that you have consulted the source to determine its applicability and relevance to the material it supports in this article.  You claim that I am inserting opinions into the article, but you can't claim they're opinions if you haven't consulted to source, which, so far, you have failed to demonstrate that you have done.  Prove that the content in question is an opinion.QuakerIlK (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not getting it. You're adding WP:OR (original research) and sourcing it to a comic book. If you had read a review in a reliable source, and that review stated the opinions that you've added, you'd have a case for adding the opinions. But you don't have that. Benicio2020 (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)