User talk:NotGirlfriendButLover

Welcome NotGirlfriendButLover! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 40,719,646 registered editors!

Hello NotGirlfriendButLover. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

I'm Vincentvikram, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page and someone will try to help. To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own personal sandbox] for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Please remember to: The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes  at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp.
 * Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.

 Sincerely, Vikram Vincent 15:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)    [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vincentvikram&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)]

Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

January 2021
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. 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.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Additionally, please stop accusing people who have reverted your edits of anti-Semitism. Your accusation appears to be based on your own analysis rather than on reliable sourcing, until you can show that there is substantial consensus in such sources for your assertion.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * hi Acroterion. Thank you for springing into action. 2 days ago I was doing a google search for the title of a youtube video, when I stumbled upon -what I believed- was a well known antisemitic caricature in the blurb for the wikipedia article, that google presented to me. Usually, when I see bigoted content on websites I report it, and continue with my day. Thats when i found out that unlike other websites that are centred on community postings and im familiar with, one cant report content on wikipedia. Thats how i became a new editor.


 * I tried to understand the wikipedia way of doing things, made my edit, explainend it on the talkpage and in the edit summary. I cant put a reference to my addition in the article, since my addition was removing a picture. I didnt think to quote sources on the talkpage, because its the first talkpage ive ever looked at, so i took what i encountered there (casual discussion of two points, without sources) as a frame of reference.


 * When I saw my edit made undone, i didnt think much of it. Because I had documented my reasons for change, and they werent addressed. So I undid the the revision. When that inturn was made undone, i thought 'oh there might be a conflict emerging here'. So i looked into conflict resolution, learned about the bold, revert, discuss cycle; and user talk pages. Those seemed to hinge on communication from both parties, so i further explainend my actions. Still i didnt here back from the other party.


 * At that point i didnt know what to do next. I tried to understand and weigh against each other all the wikipedia ways of getting help. I reached out to the other user on their talkpage, but that too didnt lead to any statement as to what was happening. Thats when i decided to head for that admin board.


 * TLDR: I am now aware, that i wasnt able to handle this the way things are done here. I am willing to learn and very much still want to adress this issue. If giving sources for my claim (the image i removed being antisemitic) on the talkpage is the way to do this, i am happy to give those sources. So where do I go from here, what is the wikipedia way of handling this?


 * thank you already and looking forward to your answer. -- NotGirlfriendButLover (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * What I suggest you do is to go to Talk:Snidely Whiplash, and present sources that discuss how the character and image are seen as anti-Semitic caricatures. That's the primary topic and the best place to discuss, and ultimately to improve the article. Keep in mind that editors will expect to see a broad consensus for such a view if it is to become a significant part of the article, and to have due weight. Then the image at Villain can be considered, but probably not before. Sources are critical, keeping in mind the documented original intentions of the artists and writers. Most of us are aware of the traditional caricatures, but I had not until now encountered such an interpretation for this specific subject, and it should be discussed at the appropriate place. Keep in mind that the article isn't an especially highly-trafficked article, so it may not get noticed right away.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)