Jump to content

User talk:173.56.203.56

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.56.203.56 (talk) at 04:41, 13 June 2022 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

June 2022

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 and saying "this is not how you write an encylopedia article." 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 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. 173.56.203.56 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:173.56.203.56&oldid=1092875313"