User talk:76.254.122.124

May 2012

Hello. I have reverted your edit to Koko (gorilla), as it had removed content from the page without a reasonable explanation. The material is well-cited and factually correct, as you would have noticed if looked at it, so it's not really reasonable to blank the section for being "unfounded material, likely the product of a very bad practical joke." The discussion on the talk page appears to refer to material that is no longer present. If you have a problem with notability, bring that up on the talk page, but I think these incidents are also fairly well-known. 18.189.110.147 (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I wasn't the original editor who used that argument, as you may have seen, however, my general rule is that if I notice content is being disputed, it should be removed from the page until consensus arises to restore it. In my opinion, it is very important to do that, as, readers who view potentially invalid content and identify it as such may judge Wikipedia based on that. For example, on April Fool's day, many editors break normal rules for the purpose of humor and entertainment. I disagree with making visible changes in the main space for those purposes, and believe that such behavior should be kept out of the main space, and in the Wikipedia: spaces, and out of the main namespace and main Talk: namespace, as that can make negative impressions of Wikipedia on new or inexperienced editors and viewers. Unfortunately, there has been too much protest against it and this behavior continues. As a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, I believe that its reputation is very important and should not be sacrificed or put at stake for little purpose, whether humor, or negligence to screen content before posting it. 76.254.122.124 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Carla Medina

A tag has been placed on Talk:Carla Medina, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. CityOfSilver 18:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: Responded to issue here. 76.254.122.124 (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled section

Look in number one you are a IP editor same like me, number two the most of editors don't know who what places or things are talking about ok you see I'm a editor who lives next to two blocks of the shopping center in the district who I'm talking about ok? Now you understand or not and looks like a confabulation between three or two editors including you against to put a real and trustful information even with citations and all the things who Wikipedia's needs to put on a page, so please let me to put the right information and don't erase the truth. Thank you.--189.203.69.24 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I ask that you observe Wikipedia:Civility. Secondly, I asked that if you do not agree with the other editor(s), you should dispute it using the correct methods. Users are expected to collaborate, and edit constructively. While I will not continue to revert your edits per Wikipedia:Edit warring, I do ask you to post a message on the appropriate talk page(s) to resolve your dispute.

There is no problem about disagreeing with other editors, but when we disagree with others, that does not mean that we can act in an uncivil manner or engage in disruptive editing. Thank you. 76.254.122.124 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for give me lessons about the Wikipedia politics but I dont asked for them, and yes it is about a problem of disagree with the other editors who acts in the same way who you mention, but any else right now I don't care what you or the other Wikipedia editors thiked because looks like you and they have a block in your head who dont let you see what bad things are you doing to put things who don't have any idea are talking about. But what ever. In this moment I don't care. Good bye.--189.203.69.24 (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's up to you what you'd like to do, but based on my experience with Wikipedia policies, if there is a disagreement between editors, even if you believe that the other editor(s) is/are blatantly incorrect, discussion is advised. If Wikipedia administrators notice a pattern of disruptive editing, they may administer a block. Thanks. 76.254.122.124 (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)