User talk:Fillmore86

December 2024

Hi Fillmore, I can see your sole topic of interest on Wikipedia is removing the "Puerto Rican" origin on the breakdancing. I have restored this line and used your source as part of a discussion, in the article, to balance authors arguing for and against Puerto Ricans as originators. (See my edit here). Before modifying this further, I encourage you to take this discussion to the article's talk page to solicit opinions and sources, and build a consensus before changing such a fundamental part of an important article such as this. Thanks. Rift (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am seeking to bring clarity to this topic. Sources that assert breaking was a multicultural phenomenon often rely on later accounts. In contrast, the sources I have provided and reviewed include interviews with the original pioneers and demonstrate that, while other ethnic groups made significant contributions, breaking was created by African American youth. The sources I am presenting are from recent studies. My aim is to offer a balanced and accurate account of breaking, acknowledging contributions appropriately without exaggeration Fillmore86 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided one source, which provides the opinion of one author. I balanced this with a source from another author offering the opposite view (see WP:NPOV.) Again, please take this to the talk page and build a consensus; if not, you will continue to be reverted. Thank you. Rift (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I encourage you to review the provided sources thoroughly. You'll find that I have cited multiple references, including the work of Harri Heinilä, which aligns with the new source I shared. This information is well-supported and not particularly controversial. Please take a moment to examine the sources Fillmore86 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your source has no page number, it is impossible to review. Can you give me the quote in your source where it explicitly states that breaking was created by African Americans "with notable contributions" from Puerto Ricans? Again, Wikipedia articles should provide a neutral point of view, representing all viewpoints (again, please read WP:NPOV). We have reliable sources asserting that breaking was created by both groups; as such, the introductory paragraph should reflect that. I realize you have a personal axe to grind on this subject, but let's keep this neutral and encyclopedic.

Please also note that your continued reversion of this wording constitutes an WP:EDITWAR. I realize you're new to Wikipedia, so please review this link, as this behavior can lead to loss of editing privileges. I will also ask you for the third time to please take this discussion to the talk page to try to build a consensus. Rift (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I believe the situation is reversed when it comes to personal biases. I have remained committed to professionalism and ensured that the information I present is both neutral and aligned with recent developments. My approach acknowledges the contributions of various groups to breaking. I cited an author who supports this perspective and provided the relevant page numbers: 'Although Latinos and other ethnicities eventually contributed a great deal to breaking’s growth, I demonstrate in this book how it was African American youth in the Bronx who almost exclusively birthed and cultivated the dance during its formative years.'

My intention is not to exclude anyone but to provide clarity. The issue lies in the assumption that acknowledging one group's foundational role in breaking somehow undermines the inclusive ethos of the art. This is not the case.

I kindly ask that you stop questioning my motives—such attempts to discredit the information I presented are unproductive. Let’s rise above this and focus on the facts. Fillmore86 (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Breakdancing 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; read about 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—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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]