User talk:Lila1994

January 2023

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page inaccurately claims that there is an economic consensus around rent regulation based on a non-legitimate and insignificant source. I have added additional citations to demonstrate that this is untrue and would need additional citations for the consensus sources with peer-reviewed studies. Lila1994 (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You said "the source isn't justifiable" (whatever "justifiable" means)--which of the four? Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section I removed inaccurately claims that there is an economic consensus around rent regulation based on a non-legitimate and insignificant source. I have added additional citations to demonstrate that this is untrue and would need additional citations for the consensus sources with peer-reviewed studies. Lila1994 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it up on the article talk page, but the bar is generally quite high for deleting properly sourced content. There are many sources supporting that economists have formed a consensus around rent regulation, this is frequently discussed on the talk page. You should look at the archived discussions. MrOllie (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this section is polemical and demonstrates a clear bias towards misrepresenting the existing academic literature. There is a wide range of economic thought and many perspectives. Please do not delete legitimate sources just because you disagree with them. Lila1994 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to argue that at the article talk page. You are not welcome to edit war to try to delete content based on your personal opinion that it is 'polemical' MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what are your qualifications to assert that there is a well demonstrated consensus? Lila1994 (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need any qualifications. The article cites numerous sources. MrOllie (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are op eds which reaffirm the initial "study." none of them actually provide data. Lila1994 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are FOUR sources in the paragraph you removed. Your additional citations include this, a blog post? Drmies (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are op eds which reaffirm the initial "study." none of them actually provide data. Lila1994 (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rent regulation 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) 04:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Rent regulation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Do not make false and/or inaccurate reports at administrator noticeboards as you recently did at WP:AIV. This is a specie of WP:Harassment and may result in your being blocked from editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence this is a false report. Lila1994 (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a well-documented history of posting spurious claims and non-reputable source material and aggressively reversing any attempted changes by the community. Lila1994 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a good faith discussion here [Talk:Rent regulation] about the accuracy of the rent regulation article, this user refused to discuss the reputability of their source material and threatened to block any users who disagreed with them. This behavior clearly does not conform to the standards of neutrality laid out by Wikipedia. Lila1994 (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A content dispute is not WP:VANDALISM. See also WP:DR. The report you filed was on a noticeboard for reporting naked vandalism and spamming. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]