Sent request for third opinion on the article 74.80.182.73 (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that moving the section on the Catholic church's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_in_Canada) residential school murder of children to the page about Kamloops school (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamloops_Indian_Residential_School) is appropriate, and is in fact the type of systemetic racism that resulted in this story being hidden for so long.

That would be like removing the reference to holocost from the page about Nazi Germany, to just be on a specific camp.

This was one school, but we know there are children's bodies at most if not all other residential schools operated by the Canadian catholic church

This is not a matter of opinion, its factual that the church oversaw schools where children died. Kamloops is but one school.

I agree it was placed in the wrong section (population) but it could be moved up, or down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:187F:2600:89C4:9164:1B41:5DEE (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, Kamloops is but one school. Events occur every day. Some horrific, some very positive. But that doesn't mean that they should go into an overarching article. Looking at the United States here in reference to the Parkland shooting or any other mass shooting; there's no mention of any mass shooting there. However, in the Florida page, there is one sentence that mentions it. Not conflating anything here, but every notable event is not worth mentioning in overarching articles. Probably best to keep it to Kamloops Indian Residential School, Diocese of British Columbia, or something like that. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The death of at least 3200 children is not a random event that occurs every day, it's not even comparable to school shootings, which are not governed by the same organization. These residential schools were governed by the Catholic Church, systemically seeking to erase the culture of indigenous people in Canada (the proposed edit is for Canadian Catholic WIkipedia page, not the entire Catholic School Wikipedia).

"The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Indigenous heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Indigenous students with inappropriate education, often only up to lower grades, that focused mainly on prayer and manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing."

These are not *horrible incidents that happen every day*, this was a system of oppression and harm enabled by the Canadian Catholic Church, as articles cite. This was present accross ALL residential schools, and thus a much bigger story than one school page.

The Catholic Church ran most of Canada's residential schools, remains silent about their devestating legacy. (and we are helping them by omitting this history from their wikipedia page.

@2604:3D08:187F:2600:89C4:9164:1B41:5DEE:/@Sunnydeveloper: Okay, I had not seen that commission report and am totally unfamiliar with that commission or its mission. That is a very large figure. Take it to the page, but don't create a new section named "Criminal history," but rather something like "Native American schools," and maybe a subsection to elaborate on what the schools did, and talk about the murders there. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PerpetuallyGrat,

I asked "How can it be incorrect when it is basically saying the same thing?" on this difference, which you reverted

May I ask you about the difference between your "citing racist imagery" and my "imagery they deemed racist and insensitive"?

The only difference I can see is that my version makes it clear that this is the publisher's judgment, not Wikipedia's. According to WP:NPOV Wikipedia should not endorse such judgements.

Neither is quoting the exact words used by Dr. Seuss Enterprises ("portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong").

Now, I don't object if you insist on "hurtful and wrong" being quoted (but note it wasn't cited on the Mulberry article before either) but that these books "portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" is not an objective fact, especially not equally for all six books. Your insertion of or reversion to "because they portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong" however claims that they are indeed. And that goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Str1977: I understand where you are coming from, but WP:NPOV just means adding content without editorial bias. When we are specifically talking about Dr. Seuss Enterprise's decision, we need to avoid editorial bias. Stating their decision plain and simple is neutral in nature. To add any editorializing deviates from that. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But it is "editorial bias" if we word it in such a way to appear that DSE withdrew the books because of some indisputable fact. They withdrew it because of their judgment.

For example, we can write: "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon" (that he walked is a fact) or "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon because to them this showed that the US was superior to the USSR, overcoming the Sputnik shock." (that they thought that is a fact) We cannot write "Many Americans were proud of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon because this showed that the US was superior to the USSR, overcoming the Sputnik shock." (that it really showed that is an opinion, not a fact).

And it doesn't matter one bit whether we share that opinion or not - I happen to agree with that moon landing sentiment, at least to an extent, but I would still oppose such language on WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Str1977: I understand where you are coming from, but to skew the direct quote from DRS is not appropriate. Another sentence to talk about the reception of their decision would be appropriate. Also, there is no WP "pillar violation" while trying to maintain an NPOV. Agreeing or disagreeing with content, or skewing it directly, violates a NPOV. TLDR, you can't just say "it's racist." There is no pillar that you're referring to that says we have to endorse/agree with the content. If the sources say one thing, go with the sources. In this case, the sources do not support what you are trying to allege. Many sources agree that DRS works have racist imagery, I am not disputing that at all, but to say that DRS withdrew their books because of racist imagery is just not factually accurate. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerpetuityGrat I'm new to wikipedia and I'm trying to slowly fix a page that was made about me and is full of information that is irrelevant or no longer has online references outside of an archive - what am I doing wrong? YuulaBuula (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@YuulaBuula: welcome, and I was actually about to leave you a note on your talk page. I don't think you are doing anything wrong, per se. It seems like the subject of the article (presumably you), lacks notability. What I mean by that is that the notability of the subject of the article does not meet Wikipedia's standard (see WP:NOTE for more details). In layman's terms, every individual who has published works or had their work featured is not necessarily notable or encyclopedia worthy. It looks like the article was deleted previously (back in 2011?) but someone re-created the page. Your edits to the content of the article are fine, that is why I have not changed anything about the content specifically. I have only added templates, which are displayed at the top of the article. These templates describe issues with the article. The most recent template I added was a request for the page to be deleted. I am totally happy to help you out here, as Wikipedia can be very confusing and technical. If you believe that the subject of the article is indeed notable, you can reply on the talk page. You can edit the information freely on the page, as long as it abides by Wikipedia standards - keep doing that. But I do believe that the subject of the article is not notable, which is why I have recommended that the page be deleted. I desperately hope this makes sense! Feel free to reach out! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Thank you for that explanation - sorry to ask here but what constitutes a "reliable" source? I cited articles / interviews in art magazines - is that not considered a reliable source? I don't really know how to edit or have time to learn right now (hence deleting the "template" over and over - sorry - I just noticed your messages in the comment section) and would rather the page be deleted than have info that isn't relevant anymore (people's art practices change and it was embarrassing to have that stuff on there). YuulaBuula (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Already a pro 4 weeks in :) Hillelfrei talk 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, quite amazing, the level of proficiency achieved in that time. Indeed, within mere hours of account creation, this editor appears to have reached expert level. Benicio2020 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the right-wing populism category as been used for people long before I started editing with pages like Donald Trump and Josh Hawley.

But Either way, Ideologically, Mary Miller is among the Nationalist Republicans.

She has a track record of being one of the Republicans with a nationalist rehtoric.

Admittedly, not every Republican is nationalist (most probably aren't), but some are like Donald Trump Fenetrejones (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: Ok fair about the populism category, but in general, BLP articles ought to only include categories about the subject themselves, not some ideology they may identify with. Now, in terms of assigning the "nationalist" title to several politicians... repeatedly you are citing a source that doesn't even mention the word "nationalist," yet you are using that as your citation. Why are you doing this? You are misleading WP users completely and inserting incorrect information.

@PerpetuityGrat: Fair enough on the populist category, I didn't know any better because it was already like that but back to the nationalist category. And sorry If I didn't clarify what I am about to say above. I was in the middle of typing what is below. It doesn't inherently have to say the word nationalism, but embrace a form of nationalism. America First (Policy) is a form of nationalism. Not every Republican though is an embrace of this policy and rhetoric.

All of these Republicans are known to be America First (Policy) which is the American Nationalism of Trump. But sorry for not being clear enough, Wikipedia itself counts America First (Policy) as American Nationalism. (Sources not included if already listed)

• Mo Brooks
• Paul Gosar
• Marjorie Taylor Greene
• Lauren Boebert
• Mary Miller
• Matt Gaetz
• Louie Gohmert
• Andy Biggs
• Josh Hawley
• Ted Cruz

Examples that are not Trump Republican types include (Doesn't inherently equal anti Trump): Libertarian Types like Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, Trump Critics like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney, and Mainstream Republicans like Mitch McConnell Fenetrejones (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Note not every Republican who objected to the results are America First (Policy) Nationalist type, but some of them are Fenetrejones (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: I'm glad we agree on the populism front. Regarding the nationalism.. a tweet, a vote, or an affiliation with a group does not definitively mean that such individual is a nationalist, socialist, or any other title for that fact. Unless it is cited by a credible source, and the source actually uses the word "nationalist," it probably isn't worth mentioning in the article - it can't be mentioned since it's unsourced. Hope this clears things up!

In terms of those names listed above, there are many other WP users who watch those pages, and I am not here to revolutionize Wikipedia. Making small edits on regular articles is all I come here for. I don't want to poke the beast and edit the "hot" articles.

PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Oh no, it is okay. I should have just clarified that in the articles. With regard to who should be counted, if they are described as Trump Loyalist or America First (policy) type than they should be counted as nationalist type because that is what the America First Policy is right. I am not trying to revolutionize anything. It is just simple information.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: Not so sure about that... and I say that because there are some folks who support Medicare for All, which by many is described as a socialist policy. I wouldn't say that supporting that policy automatically marks them as a socialist. You can be associated with a policy, but that doesn't mark someone as a socialist. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat:, But the Wikipedia article doesn't mark Single-payer healthcare as a socialist policy. America First (policy) however is a variant of Nationalism popularized by Trump where even Wikipedia says that.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia categorizes America First (Policy) as nationalism, but does not describe single payer health care as socialism. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenetrejones: okay, that was just an example I mustered up. Regardless, if sources do not say that an individual is X, you cannot mention that that individual is X. Association of or with Y does not mean X. If something hints at X, that does not mean that you can mention that that individual is X. It's all about the source. As I said above, if you can find a source that says that an individual is X, go ahead and include that. But we're not seeing that here with the nationalist title. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did misread the one for Mo Brooks, but I did find some on Miller that confirms it. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mary Miller (politician) 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. Bacondrum 22:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bacondrum: thanks, we've addressed that in the immediate section above. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	ahead of the curb
	great Idea making the page 2028 ahead PbesartBekteshi (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PG, can I just check whether you had a consensus for the mass removal of portal bars from biographical articles. A query's been raised at the Portal project. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt no I did not. If there is a consensus indicating why they should be included, I'll happily reinsert them. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimately, if there is a valid consensus as to include a link to the United States Portal because a subject is involved with an aspect of American culture, or include a link to the Biography Portal because the article is a BLP, I would love to see that. I noticed more than a few pages had those bars deleted, and others had not. To me they are nothing more than a See also section, where we might as well include Portal:Earth if it existed. If I am totally in the wrong I am happy to revert those changes. But I haven't seen anything indicating that. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt I might also add that these portals were added by one user who is no longer active on WP. It's possible that they had a consensus when they mass added these portals, but I doubt that since half of their added portals to actors' pages were deleted. Half of them were not. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals. -PerpetuityGrat (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to start a discussion here on User:Kendalandrew.
@ProcrastinatingReader:
@Edwardx:
Since it seems that the three of us are trying to repair the articles that User:Kendalandrew has been editing, I thought I would call us here to discuss. The edits by User:Kendalandrew violate so many guidelines and policies, I decided to removed all the recent content. I really hate to do that, but the content is unencyclopedic in nature and... well WP:NOW. I saw one of your edits in recent changes and honestly did not know what can of worms I would find. Wow. To me it seems as if the user is hell-bent on vilifying (via WP:UNDUE everyone involved with this apparent controversy. I know nothing about whatever is being alleged in the sources, but it really looks like to me that they are not here to improve Wikipedia.
Articles affected:

• Vladimir Chernukhin
• Lubov Chernukhin
• Robert Courts
• Theresa Villiers
• Suleyman Kerimov
• Alexander Temerko
• Brandon Lewis
• Lev Mikheev

--PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a WP:ANI; hopefully admin action will be taken. The articles will still need trimming as appropriate, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I completely agree. Thank you for doing that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have that section of "Articles I've created"? I removed them, and you reverted with an edit summary of "Ok"; what does that mean?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Guideline/policy? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't be silly. I've seen you do this before. It doesn't impress me. Is it so hard to answer some reasonable questions? This is a collaborative project, and that means cooperating with other users if they ask you something.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: When? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You created this account about four months ago. Your first edit was to create a blank userpage. Your next edits had wikilinks to policies and guidelines in the edit summaries. You were not a new user. Were you this difficult with your previous accounts?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: you came to my userpage and deleted content. Is there a guideline or policy as to why you did that? Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toe walking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bilateral. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about ? You mean the official records from Universities and US censuses (sic) ? Hell why are you talking about medical things, I've never posted anything about medicine, period. What articles are you talking about ? Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC) "Please include sources when adding content to Wikipedia" ? I AM. What are you even talking about ? Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ummunmutamnag: oops, I added the wrong template. You need to add sources to everything you post on WP. I noticed that you included a lot of information that is not sourced. That's why I let you know on your talk page. And calm down, my gosh! The article you created, Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, doesn't include sources for the most important portion of the article. WP:BLP articles need to have everything sourced. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by " the most important portion of the article." ? Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if you mean a link to him having written "The Prince of Gravas" beyond the same name, middle initial and titles earned through the University of Pennsylvania, then all the biographical information on him is confirmed in two separate editions of class records from The University of Pennsylvania available on the Internet Archive. But additionaly I have now linked that information together with another document from the University, 1917's "General Alumni Catalogue Of The University Of Pennsylvania", where it confirms Alfred Christian Fleckenstein, who graduated in 1893, is also the writer of "The Prince of Gravas". Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Ummunmutamnag: can't believe I really have to spell this out for you: When he was born, where he was born, where was he educated, what degree did he receive, what did he do for a living? There are sentences in the lead that are unsourced that need sources. :/ --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no. That information is all in "The Class of '93, The University of Pennsylvania, Record to 1930", the very first refference I put in there. I even linked to the specific page. Edit: The Mount Vernon location comes from the excerpt of the 1940 US census, the 2nd refference in the list. Edit: I added that refference again just so both year and location would be reffered to, even though that information is in the same refference already, I just gave it lower down because there it was also used to reffer to the name of his wife and date of death.

So I'm really re-using the same refference inbetween another, different refference. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Ummunmutamnag: ok, I think I need to explain that you still need in-line citations for every, single, sentence, on Wikipedia. Just because it's used in one place in the article doesn't mean you can not include the reference when it is used. How would anyone be able to track down that biographical information? If there is no reference at the end of a sentence, it is presumed to be unsourced, that's how WP works. Please see Wikipedia:Inline citation for more info... --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks and thanks for adding the citations in the meanwhile. I was trying to just include the whole section from the end of one citation into the next one, so as not to do it on every line. Since I didn't want to add seven citations for six lines of text, but I see what you mean now. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ummunmutamnag: for sure, happy to help. If you edit source, you can add a reference with the template tool (very easy to use). Simply click "Templates," then click "cite web," then insert any name in the "ref name" box. Once you refresh the page, you can click "Named references" and insert the citation wherever necessary, that way you're only adding the reference once but with multiple citations. Also, in most cases, you only need to add the citation at the end of a paragraph if the entire paragraph uses the source. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've now reverted or partially reverted my edits on multiple articles that you've never touched before I edited them. This is a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. The only reason I'm adding this to your talk page is because I read the section and it recommends I try to deal with you directly before I take it to an administrator. So, this is your only warning, and it is a courtesy only. My next step is a report to an admin. No reply is necessary. Benicio2020 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benicio2020: take your threats elsewhere dude. I have posted on your talk page more than once about civility. Checking your edits once in a blue moon, given your history, is not a form of harassment yo. I am sorry if this caused you distress of any kind. My recent edit to True North Centre for Public Policy was a simple edit. My last interaction with you before that was over three weeks ago and was when you were purposefully trying to debase and discredit a user in effort to bolster your edit arguments. I was in agreement with you in that discussion, but you were absurdly so horribly uncivil I had to say something, especially since you were also being rude to him here. Most notably, you were excessively rude and straight up lied about the credibility of my edits and my character previously to win argumentshere.

Let us not forget when I asked you on two separate occasions to be civil and to focus on the edits... you've since deleted both talk sections with an edit summary of "so done with this" "remove vandalism." Just act better dude, like huh? Wikipedia is not a battleground... like I said before, drop your weapons at the keyboard and assume good faith.

If I see you being rude as heck to users who are honestly trying to better WP, you know I will intervene. I won't stand for biting... But if you are so distressed, go ahead and call an admin's attention. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, User:Benicio2020 filed an SPI against me, which was dismissed. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Benicio2020: I just realized you did what you accused me of at Danielle Elizabeth Tumminio back in July. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Someone on Teahouse let me know about your userpage (They said that you had any and all of your links as a Rickroll which isn't true), I would advise you to add the template {{humor}} to your userpage so people don't take your "articles I've created" section seriously as every link in that section either goes to WP:RICKROLL or Rickroll. Thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

However, if someone removes those links, don't add them back. Saying you created articles only for them to link to not the article it shows up as isn't really all that funny to most people. I understand that you're trying to make a joke, however somethings are better to not joke about. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to remove the links myself as people don't really find it funny. Please don't do this in the future unless it's obvious that it's a joke. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaze The Wolf: How on earth is this not a joke? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Saying you created articles when 1. You really didn't make those articles and 2. The links not even linking to the article names that are being displayed, isn't funny. People make those sections as a sign of some accomplishments they've made. User:Bbb23 who is an admin on English Wikipedia said this, "This is a collaborative project, and that means cooperating with other users if they ask you something." If someone asks you to remove something that you find funny because they don't then you should comply or try and compromise with the other user. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I noticed that you added the feeling discouraged thing on your userpage and I want to help. I'm just wanting to know what's the issue. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 14:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze The Wolf I don't think that I have to elaborate that being called "mentally impaired" and pretty much publicly insulted in the Teahouse by an experienced editor is extremely off-putting. Perplexingly, an experience editor confused my userpage contribution history with my contributions list. Such hostility stemmed from something so trivial. Apologies are nice, but to just see such unfriendly behavior literally based off of something so pointless makes me question editing here. I thanked them for one edit of theirs I found, and then they write that... it's honestly beyond frustrating, discouraging, and infuriating. I'm just taking a small break. Thanks for the concern Blaze; you typing this indicates you care a little bit and I appreciate that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my butting in--There is much wisdom in stepping back, even when you are not in the wrong. I wrote an essay on the subject many years ago (WP:PACE; warning, it's a bit of a "Brothers Grimm"-roll). I must admit, I got actually rickrolled elsewhere a few weeks ago and in the moment it was not funny (it infuriated me), but later on it became more humorous (or it grew on me). My understanding of USERPAGE is that the space is pretty much yours to create so long as it doesn't violate policy or clearly offend. Being within policy doesn't insulate a contributor if another editor is "triggered" (my word choice) by user page content choices. One can, of course, change the channel, but judgemental (and unwise) comments often accompany being triggered (again, so to speak). This is the risk of all humor in all formats, BTW. Some people just refuse to get the freakin' joke. It is also entirely possible one could underestimate the unexpected and visceral power of Rick Springfield. BusterD (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PerpetuityGrat,

I'm sorry that you are feeling discouraged. Someone should have stepped into that discussion and brought it to a close. When I was a new editor, I got in the middle of a dispute between editors and suddenly I felt like I was being assaulted and completely misunderstood. I left for six months and when I returned, it had all blown over and everyone had moved on. None of those folks are even still editing any more! I'm not saying that you have to take a WikiBreak that long but breaks can help you return with energy and enthusiasm for editing. Unfortunately, conflicts do happen on Wikipedia and it can help to have a thick skin. But the other editor should have also been told they were out-of-line, that didn't happen and I'm sorry about that. Those slurs were completely inappropriate and unnecessary to a discussion about your User page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The user not being notified of the slurs was partially my fault as I was too focused on the thing involved in the question that I hadn't even realized the slurs. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 14:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's a fair question. The answer is that I applied a range block to an IPv6 range. Basically, a disruptive user was creating problems on those articles, and was changing IP addresses so rapidly that blocking individual IPs would not have helped stop the disruption. Since there were other constructive edits from the IP range, presumably from other users, I didn't want to block all of the edits coming from it, so decided to partially block the whole IP range from editing those specific articles. The linked policy pages explain how range blocks work far better than I could. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was curious about that, thanks for explaining that. I noticed that a user improperly flagged an article for speedy deletion, but also noticed they were blocked from editing articles that they hadn't edited before. I appreciate you explaining that. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the birth year edit of Greig Nori, I'm not sure if this is the reliable source, but this article, which dates back to September 2008, refers to Nori being 43 years old at that time, thus making 1964 his birth year. Excuse me if I'm writing it here instead of providing it as a citation in the corresponding article, but like I've said earlier, I'm not sure whether the provided source could be considered reliable, so I thought it would be wise to consult with you first on that matter. 92.43.167.68 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added that source to the article. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the likely non-notable water parks article to my attention! Dronebogus (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming I referenced List of water parks in the Americas, which really should be a category instead of a list. Thank you for nominating that for deletion. Cheers, and thanks lol. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the most clearheaded one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest living state leaders!

Dronebogus (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tartan357: can you please alert me as to why I have deserved this sanction? Can you point to the specific policy I have purportedly violated? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Talk:Jeff Hewitt (politician), we did not agree. I did not make any subsequent edits on the Jeff Hewitt article, and started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes, and only after that you added this sanction. Can you elaborate how I breached a WP policy or guideline? Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sanction. The message says "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." I'm not sure why you think this is a sanction. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Tartan357, guess I was confused as to why you placed this on my talk page without explanation. Hadn't seen this type of template before, and assumed it was a sanction or something of the sort. Sorry for the mixup. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is not noting a false claim that has been fact-checked multiple times not relevant? Multiple organizations have called him out. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a place to put endless amounts of quotes. Users are adding all sorts of "gotcha" quotes to the pages of Glenn Youngkin and Terry McAuliffe because the election is coming up. Doesn't mean we should add whatever. For the record, I've removed that sort of content from both pages. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely respect the aspect of balance, but there's both WaPo and PolitiFact giving it their maximum false claim, and he's said it multiple times. They even say he should know better. If this was once, I'd totally agree with you, politicians say false things all the time. But how do you not see multiple credible news outlets covering it as not relevant? This surely meets the standard of inclusion. Would you be able to rephrase it for balance then? 70.191.130.23 (talk) 05:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, maybe it is worth including, I won't remove it if you re-add that content. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you reconsidering it. I'm glad you're keeping a neutral eye on them :) 70.191.130.23 (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on that page's talk that there's a specific news article detailing a Democratic senator voting for it in addition to the others I documented. I hope you or someone else corrects it because it's not just Republicans who voted for it. It's misleading as is. 70.191.130.23 (talk) 03:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Did you edit Wikipedia with other accounts prior to the creation of this one in February 2021? Your first day edits cited policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:TOOMUCH and WP:BLOATED, which suggests a veteran-level familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines.
2. Do you have an affiliation with the organized ring of accounts associated with Buzzards-Watch Me Work[1], which systematically edits the pages of congressional candidates state-by-state (sometimes with no editing overlap between accounts) and appears to do so for pay? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did, WP:FRESHSTART. Not too difficult to explain. Second, I have never heard of that kind of "organized ring" lol. I hardly ever edit congressional BLP pages (can't even remember the last time I did tbh). Can I ask what edits I've even made recently that would give you that impression, since you came to my talk page and started asking questions. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 05:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What was your old account? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to inform you of that. I retired the account that was never under sanction, and the last edit was in 2019. Please don't post on my talk page insinuating that I'm part of some political machine and then not provide any evidence. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, I am actually very flattered you consider me to have veteran-level familiarity with WP guidelines. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: hello? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Snooganssnoogans: are you going to follow up on this? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source says B.S., Bachelor of Science says "BS, BSc, SB, or ScB". Doug Weller talk 15:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I realized after I made that edit that the Bachelor of Science article notes that BSc can be used, but I've never seen an American BLP article with the abbreviation "BSc" to denote a Bachelor of Science; poor checking on my part. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The key is to go by the sources, not one's own experience. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 15:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerpetuityGrat! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, WP Essay, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Skees suggesting to throw out the “socialist rag of a constitution” was not what the source said?

Directly from the cited source: Rep. Derek Skees, R-Kalispell, was also unhappy with the court’s decision to grant an injunction, calling it a failure.

“There’s no basis in our constitution to use the right to privacy to murder a baby,” Skees said. “The courts have humongously failed and we need to throw out Montana’s socialist rag of a constitution.”

And what was removed from the page: In 2021 Skees, upset with a preliminary injunction to anti-abortion bills, suggested “we need to throw out Montana’s socialist rag of a constitution.” 69.145.41.25 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see you removed "[name] was among 126 House Republicans to sign an amicus brief in support of Texas v. Pennsylvania" for numerous people, on the basis that the provided sources didn't specifically mention [name]. It took me five seconds to find a reference that did mention them in each case. I have restored six of those removals with this source:

"List: The 126 House members, 19 states and 2 imaginary states that backed Texas' challenge to Trump defeat". The Mercury News. Bay Area News Group. December 15, 2020.

but I see there are several more of your removals remaining. Please would you consider restoring the rest with that source? Five seconds to seek a source might have been the preferable approach. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: I really don't think that we should be copy/pasting paragraphs across several BLP articles. That is literally the most lazy form of editing, and is the opposite of what we should strive to do here on Wikipedia. Second, sure there is one source of those duplicative paragraphs that mentions a name, in list form, and that's it. How does that justify all the other content? At that point, you're teaching the controversy. It's horribly sloppy editing to keep these. Make these paragraphs personal to each subject and include sources about the subject. On many of these articles, one of the two duplicative paragraphs have already been deleted anyway, because they didn't mention the subject at all. If you have more sources to personalize the content, please go ahead.

Take a look at this edit. All sources: the AP source, the New York Times source, the Supreme Court primary document, the CNN article, the Guardian article, Pelosi's press release (primary doc), and the Hill article, none of those mention Murphy at all.

Like, no... why are we going to include two copy/paste full paragraphs, the sources of which don't even mention the subject? Fix that, don't just revert and say you found a source. And the list reference you included above, if you use that you're still explaining the controversy. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have provided this earlier since you said that no reason to believe it's cut/paste. Here is a fraction of the list of articles that received nearly identical copy/paste edits: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, etc. This is not how we should be editing on Wikipedia. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was incorrect about "no reason to believe it's cut/paste," as Perry is on my watchlist and that was the first one I saw before all the other edits you made. I will restore them with the source if you don't, regardless of whether you consider it lazy form. A reasonable person might consider your edits to be considerably worse than that. soibangla (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well you haven't given me a clear reason to undo my edits, and having the subject's name listed in a source (in list form only) barely constitutes a source. I'll check out what you add, but solely having the name of the subject in a list is not appropriate sourcing... The content was copy/pasted in several articles. I'm surprised it's been on all these BLPs for this long. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

having the name of the subject in a list is perfectly acceptable for this purpose. soibangla (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: can you show me what you are quoting there? Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's self-evident. I think we're done. soibangla (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You total quoted something, I'm just asking if it was a policy. If you want to disengage that's fine. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: please see the discussion below. Since you have claimed that it is difficult to assume good faith based on my edits. What's difficult to AGF is when content like this is blindly added to several political BLPs. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla, these were reasonable removals. The content was UNDUE, see recent NPOVN discussion here [2]. In most cases the source is just a primary source saying who voted for what. Even in cases where the source is something like AP News, if the source doesn't say why the politician's vote was significant vs just one of the many it's not DUE. PerpetuityGrat, it may be worth raising these as examples at same NPOVN discussion since it isn't closed. Springee (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: so, if you were me, how would you address this? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one is very simple. It isn't sourced to a wp:RS (it's a primary source) and it's a recent addition thus it is reasonable to remove it. If editors object then point to the NPOVN discussion. You can also raise a NPOVN discussion if the same edit spans many pages. Springee (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think further dialog here[3] will be productive. My suggestion is make the edits, state your reasons in the edit summaries and talk pages if needed. If the content is newly added, then consensus says keep it out until a consensus for inclusion is clear. If the content is older (and some of this stuff is), leave it be and open a RfC at NPOVN if there are multiple examples of the same thing or at the article talk page if this is just one article. This is an inherently sensitive area so it's best to be totally on the up and up. Springee (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PerpetuityGrat! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Odd infobox duplication while using visual editor, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand I need sources and citations for the Donald Payne artcile. I put the inline citations after every edit. I will do so again though and they are all reliable sources when you click on them. Thank youDonMan7 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DonMan7: you did add inline citations to the article Donald Payne (American football), but the source you cited is questionably reliable (and is dated back to 2016!). His official profile on the NFL's website does not have his weight listed as what you suggested. Further, you changed his weight to "228" while the source you added indicates his weight is/was "223." --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. The weight will be left alone. The new edit shows exactly what the Stetson University football website says with the citations from the website for his college career. DonMan7 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DonMan7: I understand that you are trying to improve the Payne article, but on Wikipedia we do not plagiarize. I would encourage you to digest the information from the gohatters.com, reword and pick and choose information about Payne. Does that make sense? The article Wikipedia:Plagiarism might be able to help you out in this regard. I am more than happy to chat with you to help make the Payne article better, but I have to undo the copy/paste content you added. At the bottom of the website gohatters.com, you can see that the content is copyrighted to Stetson Univ. I would also recommend you check out Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Let me know how I can further help. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will read those articles and learn a little bit more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DonMan7 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DonMan7: alright please do! Wikipedia really is not a place to copy/paste content from other websites or books. It's an encyclopedia (believe it or not!). Again I'm totally here to answer questions if you are unsure how to proceed. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your thanks on the fix to Katie Zolnikov (thank you back!) and your discussion on issue with infobox consistency, I couldn't agree more. Your fixes have been very helpful! I've started working on checking Wikidata Items for the US as part of Wikidata:WikiProject_every_politician/United_States_of_America. I've gone through all 50 state current senate persons based on the current lists and checked information against Wikidata.

• Currently I'm working to resolve external IDs to Wikidata via Mix-N-Match for OpenStates to check incumbent and current legislator lists. This is what brought my attention to the district error.

Building out Wikidata, keeping the data in sync, and linking with External IDs enable tools for finding gaps, errors, or conflicts in positions like California Governor and could highlight maintenance tasks or gaps. I'm not sure what will need to changes would be needed to make this work with the members of a state house of representatives or senators, probably need to have legislative session and district info as part of the position held for a person.

• Right now we can easily create tables for current legislators or any session like Ohio Senate Current Members which highlights some information gaps and would give a table to check against.
• What External ID's would be useful for lookup or queries help in filling in or identifying gaps?
• What are some reports comparing and reporting missing information or conflicting information for infoboxes? I've notice similar inconsistencies in infobox field use where when displayed the district is written as part of the office, but doesn't necessarily make it easily extracted if it were in the district field.

I'm not advocating use of Wikidata in mainspace (though I'm in favor of figuring out how to work with Wikidata as a complement), but I think we can agree, consistency of infobox data may benefit the community and additional tools could help with finding gaps and errors. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the shoutout! Yeah, it's especially difficult to find the district numbers when it comes to non-incumbents obviously. Never used OpenStates for the purpose of checking WP, but honestly not a terrible idea. I just reeally hope that as we enter the redistricting process, states don't arbitrarily change district numbers... which is a real pain in the rear when it comes to infoboxes lol. I am 100% in favor of you working to help refine political BLP infoboxes. I say go for it! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling attention to the unnecessary archiving of Talk:Koukourou. However, I have deleted the page where you pasted a copy of the original page, and removed the original page back out of archive. That is the correct way to deal with inappropriate moves, because copy-pasting over the redirect and then deleting the moved page loses the editing history, which must be kept for copyright reasons. JBW (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Haven't dealt with that sort of vandalism before, wasn't sure how to address that. Thanks for the guidance! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you cleaned up my expansions on an article (Moffie Funk) with a comment about "Fixing lots of errors...". Since I plan on continuing to expand and destub a lot of biographies, including some more local politicians, could you point me towards any templates, guidelines, or good articles to refer to? That would be helpful, especially since Good Articles like Ann Rivers also include vote statistics in the text, so I'm not sure why that addition was removed entirely.

Thanks, originalmess^talk 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, and I appreciate your justification for your edits—trying to destub articles. Not criticizing here at all, but I can easily tell that you don't edit a lot of political BLP articles. There are just some minor errors that aren't typical for a political BLP, like adding the political affiliation (R) or (D) after a politician's name. Sorry looking back at the edits I made, there were not "lots" of errors, just a few minor ones to be honest. I really did not mean to be offensive with my edit summary and hope you continue your work! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good, and haha I really don't! I'm a biologist and usually focus on related subjects, but there's such a dearth in easily notable local politician articles (I'm sure you've noticed) that it's easier to destub there. It would be nice to have guidelines but I know wikiprojects are deprecated and wikipedia in general feels like it's in a bit of a weird state with all of that anyway. I might make a sort of local politician template based on some of the GAs (like the one above) just to make my own life easier, but if you have the time/interest in looking it over at any point and providing feedback (I could drop by with a message), I'd really appreciate that! originalmess^talk 22:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here to discuss the revert you made on my Liz Truss edit. You said "I'm not sure how this inclusion is necessarily encyclopedic [sic]". How so? The definition of an encyclopaedia is "a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically". This definition is very broad and I definitely think this edit can fit within it and is justifiable. Claiming expenses is a key power of MPs, which is her job and one of the main things she is known for. The topic of MPs claiming expenses even has its own Wikipedia page itself relating to the United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal. Given those facts I think this is more than adequate for inclusion. Helper201 (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: Because we are talking about a £1,548 charge. And that scandal is not relevant in this discussion at all; that scandal was about charges during the 2000s, and Truss isn't mentioned there at all (she wasn't even in office yet). WP:ONUS, not everything verifiable deserves inclusion. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

Your entire talk page is filled with people warning you for vandalism and abusive behavior. Please stop making biased edits and removing factual information-- especially that with several sources. Based on the timing of you editing the page for Molossia after I edited a blocked user's talk page, I am assuming this is a socketpuppet. You already have multiple accusations of being one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CherriGasoline (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CherriGasoline: Is there a reason why you gave me a level four warning for a single revert, of which you included content that wasn't from the sources you provided? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are more of a novice editor. You stated in your edit summary that I was "deliberately adding false information with no sources. 4th time they've been corrected". I did not add false information, and it was not the fourth time I was corrected, though I am assuming you saw my four other edits and that's why you added this warning. I would recommend you see Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_warnings/Design_guidelines#Severity_levels and read how multi-level warnings work. This warning is for vandalism only. In the case of actual vandalism, you need to use warnings incrementally. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of how the leveling system works. I chose a level 4 based on your previous behavior towards other users, past investigation, and yes- adding false information. There is no verifiable source for Molossia being a comedy project. In order to add that information, you had to erase 4 reliable sources. You included it without even attempting to add a source. You went back and removed factual information again, this time choosing to create major structural and grammatical errors in the article, because of semantics (which if you felt were wrong, would have taken less time to simply change the wording). This 'information' you added has resulted in several users getting muted, you can view the edit history to see how many people have been blocked from editing because they would not stop inserting the same incorrect information you attempted to add. Its simply not true. I have already had a moderate manually review the information and they have confirmed the legitimacy of my sources. At this point, re-adding this information or removing factual details without even attempting to add a citation would be considered hounding. The information is not even debatable. No sources back up your claims. CherriGasoline (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have twenty edits... are you sure? Those edits I made to the channel previously were not even in April. You clearly do not understand the multi-warning system works, and your warning is inappropriate, bottom line. This warning is only made for severe cases of vandalism, in succession. Please learn how to use warnings before issuing them. I know you are passionate about micronations, but you doing this is inappropriate. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello

my edits are not un sourced, but they are removing sources that have nothing to do with the article

what do azerbaycan refugee conditions have to do with artsakh? they have their own page on internal displaced people in azerbaycan

thank you.

Əfşar Əliyev (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to the appropriate talk page. The changes you made were not reflective of the citations. Stop edit warring with the other user and just discuss it on the talk page, thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit of mine in its entirety, apparently because you disagreed with the removal of one word. Firstly you should read WP:WTW. And secondly, if despite reading the clear guidelines, you still wanted to include the word, you should have just added the word back, and not undone the rest of my edit. To trash what I did entirely as you did can only have been intentionally disruptive. Hiralious (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing one edit is "disruptive behavior"? The rest of your edit? I didn't see your "UK press regulator" inclusion in your edit, that is my bad. But to assume that I'm trying to "trash what [you] did entirely" is flat out wrong. Take your attitude elsewhere please.

I was going to partially revert my undo, but looks like you scratched everything. I did not originally insert "controversial" to her remarks, somebody else did. And based on the widespread call for her apology and widespread coverage, it is indeed controversial. Per WTW: advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. Take it to the talk page, I was restoring the version that was before your edits. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow: thanks for the notification. Glad to see another sock banned. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at TSLAQ, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop attempting a drawn-out edit war on TSLAQ. I opened a Talk page discussion prior to your latest undo and that is where we should discuss the issue. QRep2020 (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying this for those who peruse my talk page. The user QRep2020 created the page and was banned from editing certain Elon Musk-related articles (TSLAQ excluded from that ban). The user was accused and it was established that they are on WP for one sole purpose via some thread I'm too lazy to find. I edited the TSLAQ page to remove a LOT of bias, they objected. They considered it disruptive, oh well. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who cares. QRep2020 (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great comment—I'm not going to delete your warning, but it serves to inform others who check this page as to why you added this unfounded edit warning. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dorothy Moon § "Far-right". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Nerodimë e Poshtme is in violation of WP:COPYPASTE? Do you have the source that the author copied from? I wasn't able to find anything online. Dazzling4 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the citation. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]