User talk:Asfedayn

Pallotta

Billionnaire is referenced so please do not remove it Atlantic306 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) There is absolutely no reliable evidence he ever was a billionaire, his own portfolio is kept private, so please help me in keeping Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Thank you[reply]

There is no reference Pallotta personally or through his companies, has ever been a billionaire. He is nowhere to be found on most reliable financial platforms, including Forbes. Please help me in keeping Wikipedia as accurate as possible. Thank you Asfedayn (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billionnaire is referenced in the article to a reliable source so what you have just written is incorrect. To challenge it you need to provide a recent reliable source that states that he is a millionnaire. Do you have a confict of interest here? such as working for Pallotta directly or indirectly? if so it should be declared as per WP:COI. Also note that the article has been edited by a number of single purpose editors throughout its history who never contested the billionnaire status, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, Wikipedia should be an accurate source of information. You claim that an article from 2006 is reliable information - is is not. Please avoid implying that people who want accurate information somehow have a conflict of interest - it seems to me your insistence to have “billionaire” despite its absolutely unsubstantiated nature might be a sign of potential conflict of interest. If you have evidence he is a billionaire right now, please use that one. Until then, please stop from changing a more accurate description. Asfedayn (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not your mate, billionnaire is referenced and so Im reporting you for edit warring Atlantic306 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m letting you know that I’m reporting you for edit warring and I’m also informing you that you violated Wikipedia rules by not including the required warning, which I’m including here

Your recent editing history 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—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. The link you base your inaccurate claim on provides absolutely no evidence Pallotta was a billionaire - it merely claims so with no evidence. Asfedayn (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source doesn't have to reveal its sources Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source should use a verifiable basis to make a claim. Merely stating someone is a billionaire without more, is not considered a “reliable source.” Case and point, Pallotta is not on the Forbes list, which confirms he is not a billionaire. This doesn’t even touch on the fact that your “source” is from 2006, namely before the 2009 crisis in which Pallotta lost most of his assets. You shouldn’t take edits personally starting an edit war you can’t substantiate. Either way, my main point was to shed light on his abysmal performance as the president of AS Roma, and that is done so whether you wish to continue using an inaccurate qualifier as “billionaire” is of no consequence at this point. But again, I encourage you to approach edits in an objective manner rather than taking them as personal attacks. Asfedayn (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a reliable source such as Boston magazine does not have to reveal its sources, that is the basis of journalism Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not Pallotta’s publicist, focus should go on information accuracy rather than releasing one’s liability. The Boston Magazine does not base its claim on any piece of verifiable information (public financial statements and the like). Moreover, currently there is no evidence Pallotta is a billionaire, confirmed also by Forbes. So at the end of the day, you should ask yourself whether priority should be given to truthful and accurate information, or to your personal feelings about having been corrected. There is absolutely no ill intention on my side and neither am I angry at you (“I’m not your mate” instead, shows you are personally involved in this matter). I just care that Wikipedia offers truthful and accurate information: an unsubstantiated article from 2006, hardly qualifies. You can repeat that you deem the magazine a reliable source, but that misses the larger point: the information about Pallotta currently being a billionaire is simply inaccurate. Whether your position is protected by Wikipedia guidelines should not be the focus of the inquiry, but rather whether what we are putting out is accurate and truthful, which as Forbes currently continues to prove, it is not. It seems you’re stuck in taking this personal, when it was never my intention. Asfedayn (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Asfedayn reported by User:Atlantic306 (Result: ). Thank you. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]