|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 |
stop reverting my edits
Per my explanation, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." I am going to delete it again and I expect you to respect this deletion. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's well-referenced. If you continue to edit-war you will be blocked. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WolvesandWhales you have made no effort to discuss your changes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I did, in fact, discuss my changes. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Read what was deleted. Having a citation does not make something well sourced. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WolvesandWhales Have you provided a reason that this material is contentious, other than your own assertion?Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I would refer you to the definition of contentious: "causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial." WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WolvesandWhales Have you provided a reason that this material is contentious, other than your own assertion?Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- I did, in fact, discuss my changes. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Read what was deleted. Having a citation does not make something well sourced. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Having a citation does not mean something is well referenced. There are additional actions being taken as to the articles, as well. Why are you so interested in aiding and abetting defamation? Don't threaten me. WolvesandWhales (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Neither of us have threatened you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- @WolvesandWhales you have made no effort to discuss your changes. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Overtraining
You made a mistake on my edit. Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoraGates (talk • contribs)
- @NoraGates: I did not make a mistake. The additions you are making are all uncited and also do not adhere to a proper encyclopedic tone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a health advice guide. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
You have been reported to WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Your vandalism and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District
Your vandalism and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Federal_District&diff=1134113109&oldid=1134110461
- removal of cn-template
- changing establish to founded
- changing included to includes
- engaging in EW
- using admin rights to protect the page in vandalised state that violates the copyright rules of the WMF
are bad for the reputation of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. Please revert what you did. 78.55.133.227 (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs)
- There is currently a discussion at Incidents regarding edit war on Southern Federal District. The thread is COPYVIO and admin right abuse at Southern Federal District by IronGargoyle. Thank you. Please note that this discussion was started by the anonymous user, but they did not inform everyone involved so I am. –DMartin 02:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy Seventeenth First Edit Day!
Hey, IronGargoyle. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC) |
Pepe Le Pew
In March 2021, it was reported that Pepe Le Pew will not appear in future projects. But his cameo in Animaniacs conflicted those articles. And the fact he was edited out of the Annecy version of a previous short that's still available makes it even more confusing. Does it mean is it still official that Warner Bros. had banned and retired the character from ever being used again or was the whole controversy short-lived and it didn't mean anything? But I have seen Pepe Le Pew being left out of recent new merchandise. 72.189.139.68 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)