User talk:2A02:A420:6D:692:844C:D969:ADBE:B314

May 2023
Hello, I'm Andethyst. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to EliZe—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks.  Andethyst  (talk)  20:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing facts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90BnU4CRUSI How is it not constructive when this is the song that started her fame???

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PhilKnight (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Restoring facts from a reliable source is not an edit war, pov-pushing and IP-bias is though...

Quote: "It's either 'The Tit Song' or 'Automatic'," says EliZe when asked where she is recognized from.


 * I will block you, if you continue to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I will report you to the arbitrary commision if you do that.
 * okay. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

EliZe talk page
Let's have a discussion. Not sure how to ping an IP, so I'm leaving this message on your talk page. PriusGod (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Are you denying that she performed the tits songs and this made her famous? Are you questioning the reliability of RTL Netherlands? Or maybe the Youtube video where you can see her perform this song fake? Or do you just have a problem with the title of the song? If you do, then tell me, how does your personal point of view make my edit vandalism (see false aquesitions here ?


 * If we're going to have this discussion, we should have it in the talk page of the relevant article. Please sign your comments and place them properly so the discussion is legible. PriusGod (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

You have accused me of vandalism here, while at the same time removing relevant sourced facts. That constitutes vandalism and smells like ip-bias. So that part deserves a discussion here.
 * Both of you should stop the vandalism accusations. PhilKnight (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that she performed the song and this is what started her fame is properly sourced. Every dutch person who grew up in the 80s and 90s knows the song and the lyrics are perfectly acceptable in Dutch culture. There would have been no wikipedia page about this person had she not performed the song. What else should we call the removal of this reliable information?
 * You should call it a content dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)