User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB

November 2022
Hello, I'm Timothytyy. I noticed that you recently removed content from U.S. Victoria Libertas Pallacanestro without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not remove content without consensus. Timothytyy (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's flatly incorrect. I did adequately explain why. Just read the edit summary. Your revert was not appropriate. Please self-revert, immediately. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 07:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

About your removal of content
I noticed that you are rapidly removing content with a reason of WP:BLPREMOVE. However, I don't think you understand it. This rule is only applicable to biographies of living people: Unsourced content should be removed. But the content you are removing is from articles of sports teams, so WP:BLPREMOVE is NOT applicable there. You cannot remove names from articles just because you think they are not notable. You should seek consensus to decide whether the players should be removed or not.

Let me remind you again: The pages you are now editing are not BLPs at all, and therefore not applicable to WP:BLPREMOVE. Please stop your mass removal of content now. Timothytyy (talk) 07:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. You are certainly incorrect.

Please read it.

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to Wikipedia page.

...All ... material must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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 .<...

Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

--2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So you think having an article or not is a criteria of whether including it on a page?
 * Or you think players with articles do not need references? Timothytyy (talk) 07:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the rule. The entries you by revert included you did so without either the requisite refs, or a wikipedia article containing them. The existence of either might well indicate notability and that the player played for the team. But in those cases there are neither. They have been deleted - you must .. must .. supply either an article or requisite RS refs supporting their notability and playing for the team if you wish to restore them without callously ignoring Wikipedia rules. Your restoration without either was flatly improper.2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should check the article's history. Timothytyy (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that? It's irrelevant to this issue. You've restored content improperly. Please self-revert, or let's bring in an admin to review whether your conduct violates the relevant rule -- which I have sent you, discussed with you, and highlighted at length. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am asking you to check the history because I want you to know the motion of the editor who added the content you removed. As you may know, I am only patrolling RC and I saw your mass removal. After my inspection of your contributions, I believed that you did not pay attention to why editors added those people inside. You just removed every red link rapidly in different articles; therefore, I believe that you did not check the history. They may have added an edit summary about it, or they might have other reasons. You told me that they might just "add friends or non-notable people"; however, after I checked the history, I don't think they have that intention. I am not only warning you in this particular edit, but on others as well. You are travelling from one article to another to remove red links, so I advise you to slow down and check the history. Thanks. Timothytyy (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The edit history is irrelevant. Completely. I cannot imagine why you would think otherwise. You and I cannot know why people add material they should not add. This is such. It is uncited. There is no article. There is zero indicia of reliability of the sort Wikipedia calls for - when blp information is challenged. You are forbidden from restoring it without a proper inline citation to an RS (though I personally would not have a problem with just an inline to a wp article on the person that shows the connection). This is all clearly stated in the rule. Zero about your made-up "what about looking at edit history and somehow guessing as to the purpose of the editor." Zero. If you don't self-revert, I will ask an admin to look over your refusal, and advise you or take other action accordingly as is taken when people have had long conversations, seen a clear rule, but refuse to follow it. I (and the other editor who also wrote you) have been exceedingly clear. The rule is clear. And if you cannot understand it, you should stop reverting editors - until you do. Violating the rule damages the project. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I ask you to look at the history because it might just be a broken link, or it may be vandalism which requires warning. The edits you just did is just too rapid for you to check why people added those "unsourced" information. I agree that they might not be notable; but I do not agree with your way, by just deleting all red links. Why would someone add a red link into it? That needs to be checked by the history. I appreciate your ways to guard the basic rules of Wikipedia, but I suggest next time if you want to remove content, think about the reason why people added it; it requires warning if it is vandalism, or it might just be a broken link or removed article. Checking the history of an article is always a good practice for your kind of patrollers. I will revert my edit, as after checking the history, I noticed that it was just a mass addition of people. Thank you, and keep up your patrolling work! Timothytyy (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not making sense. And sorry - I've devoted too much time to this already. There are no link rot issues - they would appear on the page. There is no obligation to look for vandalism and give a warning. You cannot guess accurately the reason the editor entered a name from the history page. You can't. Please stop making up rules that are not rules (nor would they make sense). Instead - please stop violating the rule I sent you. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact this is the first time I touched this rule. I did not make up rules. I am just trying to give you some suggestions, as you are new. I am just suggesting you to check the history every time you make such edits, and I did not order you to stop, or else I would have reported you already. It was my mistake of reverting your edit, but after checking your contributions I decided to give you some suggestions. I didn't mean to break rules; in fact every non-disruptive editors would not. Timothytyy (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a baseless, unhelpful suggestion. If you made it to some other editor, you might fool them into thinking there was something to it. There is not. It is neither based on wp rules. Nor on common sense. For the reasons I point out. You cannot from the edit history determine the reason for the improper addition -- and IT DOES NOT MATTER. It's that simple. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you decline my suggestion, it is absolutely OK for me. I am just trying to prevent you from making the mistake I made; jumping from one article to another to edit without understanding the situation. Every edit on Wikipedia should not be conducted without thinking twice or thrice. I am just telling you that before I revert, I check the history. This time I didn't, so I thought you were making a disruptive edit, and ended up scolded by you. You can search about the importance of histories. Again, you can ignore my suggestion. Bye. Timothytyy (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Reread what I wrote. You still don't understand. Your suggestion is unhelpful. You and I cannot know the reason an editor made such an improper edit by looking at the article history. And it matters not. The edit is improper. It should not be made. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A0CD:E5EB:F5B8:76DB (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I read every word you wrote. Whether I understand or not is not decided by you. Your words are too subjective so I have no way to argue. Page histories are for editors to know the previous edits; it is not quite hard to determine whether the user is vandalizing or not. The user's intention is clearly known, at least by very experienced editors. Anyway, you can forget about my suggestion, and happy editing. Bye! Timothytyy (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)