User talk:Geerestein3

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.  scope_creep Talk  17:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome
 Hello, Geerestein3, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
 * The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Geerestein3, good luck, and have fun.   scope_creep Talk  18:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion invitation
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyurkovicsarna. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars
Hi, article creation has its own guidelines and conventions. In general, however, please avoid edit warring. Seek a consensus on the article's talk page instead, whenever a dispute occurs that creates an urge to revert. You are now considered to be aware of the policy against edit warring and may be blocked from editing, possibly without further warning, if the behavior reoccurs during normal article editing. You may even be blocked to prevent further disruption in situations such as the one now handled at Articles for deletion/Gyurkovicsarna; overwriting redirects by articles is not officially exempt from the edit warring prohibition. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, but i just restored a bad situation from the past (i undid an illegal deletion of an article). My restoration was met with an edit war from others users. The world of wikipedia is very difficult i know, but i scincerly hope you have given this warning also to the complainer asking for my blocking. Just the other day i received a 'thank you' for this edit specifically for undoing the revision made on my edit. So i hope english wikipedia also has some form of justice and respect in which users are not only met with a tunnel vision or bias. Thank you for the action on the article itself and asking for deletion. Geerestein3 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I just checked. @User:ToBeFree: could you please give scope creep the same blocking warning?, Kind regards Geerestein3 (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Having their noticeboard report declined with page protection of the revision they opposed seems like a clear message an experienced Wikipedian understands without explicit warning or admonishment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ok fair, thank you for your response. Geerestein3 (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe E. Brown
Morning! I've reverted the date change in Joe E. Brown for now. You mention reliable sources, please cite those in the article for changing the date of birth - or perhaps initiate discussion on the talk page. The alteration comes with no supporting evidence or source listed. Thanks! CMacMillan (talk) 13:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@CMacMillan:Hi, which reliable source at the moment is cited in the article for 1891? or for that matter wich source do you use to uphold a wrong status quo? going to the talk page you could see that the issue has already been made, but no one took the responsibility for correcting. If you would please go to wikidata you can see i left a remark there citing sources on the talk page there. Please be as invested as your are in reverting my edit in now changing the article in to proper and factual information. Many thanks and a pleasant day to you as well! --Geerestein3 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * IMDB is not a valid source, and having no current citation is not a license to alter the information. You claimed reliable sources, please just add one as a citation. CMacMillan (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I,m not takling about IMDb, have you read my response? --Geerestein3 (talk) 13:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC) see here: []


 * Yes. And I'll go ahead and follow guidelines and add your citations. Is there a reason you refuse to cite within the article? CMacMillan (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

No not particularly especially when the authority control of the article and the already mentioned sources are not in correspondence with the article itself. So in this case it was simply a matter of making the current article corresponding to the sources already used. Is there a reason why everybody just like te revert first and the try to find consensus later? --Geerestein3 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is.
 * Following protocol, changes to articles which do not include reference information can be reverted as additions or changes without proper citation or information. This is basic Wikipedia. In fact, even the edit summary window gives you the ability to explain and outline the change with associated reason and methodology. Did you seek consensus or is that an expectation you have of others?

Incidentally, all I'm asking is that you cite when changing. Why the argument?CMacMillan (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I did give an edit summary? yes you 'can' but you dit not 'have' to revert. I see that the ball is in my court only and i have to be the one to held accountable? I simply ask to get the same respect i give to wikipedia in return. It would have been nice to ask for a citation without the revert first, that's my point of view. --Geerestein3 (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)