User talk:Cilinhosan1

Cilinhosan1, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cilinhosan1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Cilinhosan1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Cilinhosan1, hope everything is going well. If there's anything I can to to help your Wiki-experience let me know.

Re the deal at Lolicon, allow me to suggest checking out WP:BRD. Basically, the burden is on anyone wanting to change something that's been stable in an article for a while, if the change is contested; so since you were contested, the burden would be on you to go to the talk page and argue successfully for removal of the material. I don't have an opinion on the merits of the case, I was just reverted to defend the WP:BRD principal. Herostratus (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page. (Usually, editors like to keep conversations together all in one place, so when we write a message on a talk page we will watch that page and assume that any replies and further conversation will take place there. (However, this is not always done, and it's not a requirement, nor "wrong" to do the other way. Just saying how it is usually done)).

Bottom line is, you did write your case on the talk page, and I missed it. You were right on the procedure and the merits it seems, and I was wrong. So, sorry! All fixed now. Herostratus (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, reliable sources and our other policies and guidelines

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

You are new here, so please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Primary sources, and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. It is completely unacceptable to edit-war to insert content that is not reliably sourced or is improperly primary-sourced. When another editor raises a policy-based objection, you must discuss on the talk page to gain consensus. You should immediately self-revert. Neutrality^talk 19:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the one who is being the disruptive one, and just because my account is new doesn't mean that I am new to wikipedia's policies, since I've been using wikipedia for a long time without an account and I was completely aware of all the articles you apointed me to read long before I started editing, I would also recommend you reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy, WP:PRESERVE, and Wikipedia:Content removal in case you need to be reminded of it, your edits are only prejudicing the article with no work of your part to fix any problem you think that you found, you see something that happened but you classify the sources unreliable and then remove the content, be reasonable and follow wikipedia's guidelines, WP:USEPRIMARY, WP:PSTS -Cilinhosan1 (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I've explained in detail on the talk page (Talk:Censorship by Google#Unreliable sources / improper self-published sources / WP:SYNTH) the problem with each source. If you have in fact edited Wikipedia before, then you ought to know that when material is removed based on no original research (specifically, SYNTH) and sourcing concerns, you should not immediately try to re-insert it into the article. The burden is on you, as the proponent of the content, to demonstrate that (1) it is directly relevant to the page (this means the source itself must talk about censorship) and that (2) the source is reliable (this means not opinion articles, and not random websites self-publishing complaints about how Google wronged them). These concerns are based on our core policies (essays, a number of which you linked, are not). Neutrality^talk 20:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I will proceed with this discussion on the talk page of the article -Cilinhosan1 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Neutrality^talk 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)