User talk:Retrofan781

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Retrofan781. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Corkythe hornetfan  (ping me) 02:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kylian Mbappé, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Adesanya
Hi. As per BRD I thought I'd ask why you think a comment as to Adesanya's school progress to be relevant?NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Hello. The schooling is relevant because that was the main reason why he moved to New Zealand as stated in the news article. (see Reliable_sources and Neutral_point_of_view). --Retrofan781 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Here you go, feel free to chime in. Do note WP:BRD does not supersede Wikipedia content policies and guidelines (WP:NPOV and WP:NEWSORG). So on what grounds did you just remove this content? Do note WP:BRD-NOT again. --Retrofan781 (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just because something is published doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopaedia. WP:RELEVANCE. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Relevance. It would have been easier to discuss but I think the article's better now than it was.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ You do realize that is just an essay, right? Since when did essays/opinions replace Wikipedia content policies and guidelines like WP:NPOV and WP:NEWSORG which clearly support inclusion of the content? So far your argument seems to be bordering on WP:IDONTLIKEIT which does not justify its exclusion whatsoever. --Retrofan781 (talk) 10:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for including the content. It's not relevant. No point continuing to discuss.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ Then I suggest you read WP:NPOV again. --Retrofan781 (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ As you can see above, this WP:BRD discussion was started here by @ but he is clearly not interested in it after being confronted with facts. Because per WP:BRD-NOT, "BRD is never a reason for reverting. Unless the reversion is supported by policies, guidelines or common sense, the reversion is not part of BRD cycle." Per Relevance, "This page is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." And 3) per WP:NPOV, "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Please advise. --Retrofan781 (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My edit removed detail that isn't relevant. It had nothing to do with NPOV. You were bold, I reverted. The next step should have been for you to discuss, yet you didn't. You went to war with me and other editors. I then started the discussion you should have started. That was taking place but you continued to war. I am nonplussed as to how you think removing excessive and irrelevant detail as to Adesanya's academic progress somehow contradicts NPOV. I shan't comment further other than to reiterate that there is no consensus for inclusion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * @ You are talking in circles. You keep declaring it as not relevant, based on what? An essay/personal opinion or an actual vetted Wikipedia content policy or guideline? The reason I reverted your reversions is because you deleted chunks of content from the article without knowing or caring to follow normal protocol (pay close attention to first sentence). Instead you kept deleting and kept changing the goalpost as to why you were doing it (notice how you went from WP:BRD (without realizing WP:BRD-NOT) to WP:NOTE to WP:RS to Relevance to proclaiming no consensus). And just earlier you flat out refused to explain how an essay or so-called no consensus can supersede WP:NPOV. Content had nothing to do with NPOV you say? Well let's see... "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". In other words, you still have not given a valid reason for deleting NPOV content on a topic covered and published by MMAFighting, ESPN, etc. --Retrofan781 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

July 2021
Your recent editing history at Giannis Antetokounmpo 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. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 05:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)