User talk:47.72.216.210

October 2022
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dutchavelli. Thank you. Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 05:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * They are well referenced online articles on allegations of Dutchavelli's accusations, and all I have stated are that the events were accusations. I did not claim them to be true. Simply, I stated that there has been calls en masse to cancel Allen, and that there were major online allegations directed at Allen for pedophilia and abuse. Which is de facto true, whether one supports him, or not. 47.72.216.210 (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Dutchavelli 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. – 2 . O . Boxing  06:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Section
I'll be completely honest, I don't care enough to have an edit battle for this addition. All I'm saying is that what I stated was legitimate events which happened, if you choose to not include it, fine, erase history if you want. The statement I put was legitimate, with reliable sources, and phrased in a neutral manner. It doesn't make sense to delete it because of 'poorly referenced information', because the citations I included were online forums/discussions about this specific matter, literally proving the existence of outburst en masse on Dutchavelli's accusation of being a nonce. I'll stop arguing about this. It's totally up to you guys to either revert the edit or not. 47.72.216.210 (talk) 09:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether you want to pursue something is, of course, up to you, but as you wanted to include the information, the burden is on you to make a case on the talk page as to why it should be included. Note that online forums/discussions are not acceptable sources; you must use independent reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)