Jump to content

User talk:173.56.203.56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2022

[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

To what do you refer?173.56.203.56 (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much a litany of misdeeds attributed to another editor. First off, this is entirely unhelpful; and two, even if the are legitimate (no judgement whatsoever on that), such complaints are not at the appropriate venue. Article talk pages are for discussing article content, not venting one's frustration with people whom you disagree with. If you really think the other editor has breached Wikipedia behavioural guidelines, the proper place is the WP:Dramaboard (more formally, WP:ANI), although that usually only generates more heat and little light. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was a criticism of his edits, not of his character, and I am sorry you took it in any other way. Also, if you look at the talk page, you will see I am not the only user who is upset with Greg's contributions and conduct in editing the article-- another editor has created a section complaining of Greg's misrepresentations of sources and attempts to evade scrutiny for his edits. If you wish to contribute to the article please join us and discuss your proposals on the talk page, as I have, as we would love to have your input. I would greatly prefer if you offer justifications for your edits rather than referring me to joke pages like WP: Opinions are like arseholes though. Thanks. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Depp v. Heard, you may be blocked from editing. Here's a version of the article barely a week ago. THe content you keep restoring is not present, so it is not "longstanding" by any measure. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
As for the very obvious issues with your edits:
  • Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer, told the BBC that [...]
  • Jennifer Freyd, the psychology professor who coined the term Darvo, stated that [...]
  • Hadley Freeman, a journalist for The Guardian, stated that [...]
  • Constance Grady of Vox declared that [...]
  • Tarana Burke, founder of the movement, disagreed that [...]
  • Tiffanie Drayton, a writer, stated to NBC News that [...]
  • Film critic A. O. Scott wrote in The New York Times that [...]
  • Ronnell Andersen Jones and Lyrissa Lidsky of Slate commented that [...]
  • Dan Novack of The Atlantic, a media lawyer, argued that [...]
This is not how you write an encyclopedic article. Simply indiscriminately quoting opinions is entirely unproductive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The section is called "reactions to the verdict," so yes it includes reactions. Please share an actual policy basis for your removal of content rather than just making up things as you go and saying "this is not how you write an encyclopedia article." It's interesting to hear you talk about analysis from reliable sources being mere "opinions" yet here are acting purely from your own opinion with no real policy basis for your actions. This is not "indiscriminately quoting opinions" I assure you no one selected these reactions "indiscriminately" they were chosen because they were in prominent, notable, reliable sources. I'd be pleased to submit the dispute to administration for resolution if you are going to continue to delete an entire section of an article you have apparently not even read without citing a single policy-based reason for doing so. It's interesting that you post your "reasons" for deleting the content here but refuse to post them on the article talk page and contribute to the discussion. Why is that? Additionally, I did not write this material, I am simply restoring it from your wholly unreasoned deletion. Deleting material without reasons is dangerously close to vandalism and is entirely unproductive. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: - I ask that you do not blame this IP for my writing. Those quotes above, are entirely mine. As for 173 IP, please try to WP:AGF regarding Greg. starship.paint (exalt) 10:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear your concern regarding assuming good faith and will seek to do better on that front. Still, repeated misrepresentation of sources is just as much of a problem whether it is done intentionally (in bad faith) or accidentally (in good faith).The problem is the misrepresentations themselves; ultimately, I do not care about the intentions or lack thereof behind Greg's misrepresentations.173.56.203.56 (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bored Ape, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. PopoDameron (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:173.56.203.56&oldid=1111452683"