You state that on your home page "I focus on improving wikipedia". However, judging by one of your edit on the Berlin Palace entry which I needed to correct just now, you're doing the very opposite. Casually reading it, I couldn't understand why the 'Towards Reconstruction' section was making no sense, and that Wilhelm von Boddien's surname appeared with no context. This was due, as I learnt by going through the past edits, due to a careless edit you had made. You removed commonly known factual information, (Boddien is nicknamed in Berlin 'lord of the castle' due to being its instigator) supported by a reliable reference (NY Times), because, according to your edit notation, it looked like an ad. Worse, the edit cut off the text, so making nonsense of the entry. That you would make an edit of a subject which you appear to know little of, and obviously didn't even check the reference before doing so, is alarming. One wonders what other entries you've so compromised! For the sake of Wikipedia: If you don't have a solid knowledge of a subject, best policy is "Don't touch the entry". If you DO have solid knowledge of a subject, it is basic etiquette and courtesy to the hard work of other editors to check all references before making an edit to preclude the risk of making an error. I don't come to Wikipedia often, and won't be checking anything else you've done, so don't bother to reply, as I most likely won't see it. But please bear these thoughts in mind -- which are well intentioned -- before deleting them. A little more respect, and a little less careless ego will go a long way. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:18ED:63BA:45E1:E83D:2D2A:C090 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is improper, please familiarise yourself with our policy on WP:Biographies of living persons. - wikitigresito (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearBreeze (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikitigresito, I think the neutral point of view is respected. I am not judging, I am only reporting several media accusations that allow readers to understand the controversy generated by the candidacy of Mr. Torra. All the information is properly referenced. Why do you believe the NPW is not respected? Thanks in advance. Sincerely

Thank you for your message, I will reply on the articles talk page. May I suggest that you create an account, so it is easier for you to participate in a discussion under a distinct identity? It is not necessary and you have every right to participate without having an account, but it is generally recommendable. wikitigresito (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kathleen King von Alvensleben. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikitigresito, Your recent deletion of my content was utterly unacceptable. I provided hard evidence that can clearly be proven & made my case for keeping the article iron clad. You deleted it so fast as to remove all proof to my citations had you allowed an open discussion and kept the article live and allowed other people’s feed back to my case then the page would still be available and would have been kept without any doubt in my mind. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lisa, I am sorry that you feel like this about the recent deletion of your article. However, this was the result of the deletion discussion. Also, I did not delete your article, I just argued for deleting it. The administrator who closed the deletion discussion and therefore deleted your article was @Randykitty:. You can get in touch with them but I recommend you become more familiar with our policy first, you might want to start with WP:GNG and relevant to your case WP:AFTERDELETE. wikitigresito (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitigresito, my citations and my article fit into Wikipedia’s criteria. I provided hard evidence to back that up hence the hasty deletion. It’s devastating and it’s shocking that it was allowed.LisaHadley2018 (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You posted: Delete Looks like someone really wants this article to be included. Going through the references I became more and more convinced that this is a case of WP:REFBOMB with the intention of faking notability (Subject not mentioned in sources... subject mentioned only briefly etc.). I also tried to take into account what was stated above but I didn't help me finding independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage about the subject, it felt more like a smoke screen. I provided independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage on the author which included print & digital media. Four pages on the author in an ABC registered weekly magazine which has a circulation of 163,392 is not unreliable or a smoke screen. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not want to continue a closed deletion discussion on my talk page. WP:AFTERDELETE is a guideline that you should read. wikitigresito (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikitigresito, I understand you don’t want to continue the discussion on your talk page & respect your response. Especially considering if we did get into it & your allegations behind the deletion I’d prove you wrong. But what I will say is an ABC registered weekly publication is reliable & four pages on the authors work which includes an interview with the author is not a smoke screen. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^{[1] [2]} Hi the above links will help you understand what an industry reliable source is for future deletion suggestions. Four pages of editorial coverage and two pages (plus a front cover coverag tagline) which includes exclusive interviews with the author is not brief & is notable. LisaHadley2018 (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, I do not wish to discuss this topic anymore, because there is no point in doing so. wikitigresito (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikitigresito. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]