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:

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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Herostratus (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

ADF

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

I suggest you self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 09:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cilinhosan1: yes, you need to self-revert. No need to edit war especially when SPECIFICO has such a poor, unpersuasive argument on talk. – Lionel^(talk) 09:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Alliance Defending Freedom. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cilinhosan1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not believe that this block was necessary given that I made 1 more revert than the 3 reverts allowed, the last being from an editor bringing the statements back to the lead being discussed in the talk page without any regard to it and with a very generic edit summary such as "Restore consensus", I automatically assumed that this was simply disruptive editing given the situation and reverted it. Yes I am knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and yes I've put multiple edit warring warnings on disruptive users' talk pages, and there were reasons for it if the logs are looked at, in no way I was warning other editors and edit warring myself, as the admin that blocked me mentioned in the edit warring noticeboard. Again I believe this block to be a mistake and should be removed, given that I do not have any history of being blocked for edit warring and made this this fourth revert in good faith. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've reviewed this block at your request. You made four clear reverts within a 24 hour period against multiple editors and are well aware of the applicable policy. I see no exceptions, just a simple edit war. This block does not, in any way, appear to be a mistake. Kuru (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Question about lolicon ban

	Lolicon Star
	Hi there! Do you have any more information about Google banning searches for lolicon from April 2010, as you mention on the Lolicon talk page? You can email me jeremy@prostasia.org if that's easier than responding on Wikipedia. Background: I am from a nonprofit interested in taking action about this. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much information on that, the reason I edited Google's censorship article was because I saw that it was a kind of censorship that was not being addressed, so I just added it, the information I have is on the article. I was able to notice that because I am familiar with anime subculture in gerenal, and this is talked about there. I took a break from Wikipedia editing that's why it took me so long to answer you. Cilinhosan1 (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]