User talk:76.107.252.227

Just a heads up about COI violations

Hey, I just wanted to give you a quick heads up, since I noticed you had a somewhat unpleasant runin with SergeCross. Did you notice that you had a prior conflict with a user named Smuckola? This isn't a coincidence. There is a group of a few users here on Wikipedia that use Cross' administrative privileges to ensure that cases of wikistalking, outright vandalism and harassment go unpunished. Unfortunately, because of the nature of Wikipedia, these things are not something we have the capability of fighting against. If you want to continue contributing to Wiki, that's admirable, but be aware that there is a worm in the apple. 67.139.40.166 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reticulated python size

Do NOT revert the reticulated python page again. Please examine the extensive discussion on the talk page. There is extensive evidence from FAR superior sources to Guiness that their supposed record is invalid and unreliable. This has been debated ad nauseum on the talk page, and the conclusion, based on the best sources available, is that Guiness is wrong. Please take any and all future discussion to the talk page before restoring this invalid record. HCA (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the case multiple sources are needed. I don't consider that author reliable. I never heard of this person "Gabriella Fredricksson" in my life. There are probably better snake experts besides that person.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed scientific paper. Whether you've "heard of them" is utterly irrelevant. HCA (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is because there are other scientific report that can nullify it. Quit acting like your source is the only reliable one that's selfish and spoiling other users rights to edit and add reliable sources.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, then your next edit will only cite peer-review scientific articles, then. HCA (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia article that states that. Reliable sources can come from Newspaper, history books, science reports, or polls. If you remove my reliable source again I am having you blocked from wikipedia for edit warring and removing reliable sources.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Look, just read the damn talk page. That's what it's there for. This topic has been discussed before, AT GREAT LENGTH. This position is not just my whim, but the considered opinion of many editors after a VERY long discussion on this topic. Go. Read it. All of it. See *why* we say what we say, *why* we consider this 32 foot report unreliable, *why* the book I cited is a conclusive refutation of it. If you want to contribute, then take the time to educate yourself about the subject. This topic is prone to "big fish" stories, so skepticism is warranted. HCA (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Freeza

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Freeza. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Click on the category you're adding; its says "This category is for Fictional characters in animation explicitly identified as gay...", if it is not in the series it doesn't get added. Your interpretation of the character doesn't change anything. Xfansd (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello, I'm Lazylaces. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lazylaces (Talk to me) 06:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States

1st, the information you are adding is incorrect. Deadpool actually became the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016 on its 1st "day" of release not its 3rd weekend. 2nd, a film staying #1 at the the box office for 3 & 4 consecutive weeks is a milestone that has been listed on these charts for years. Never has there been a "highest grossing R-rated or PG13-rated or G-rated film of the year milestone for the simple fact that the highest grossing film would change so often during the year. 3rd, you have no source that states the information you are trying to enter into the article, only from personal research. Please stop edit warring. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok first of all.. Look at the vandalism article ""Edit warring over content is not vandalism"" YOU'RE edit warring not me, and falsely accusing someone of vandalism to get your way is against Wikipedia rules. I'm going by it's overall rating not at what point it became the highest grossing R-rated film and it is a milestone see (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/mpaarating.htm?yr=2016&rating=R&view=releasedate&p=.htm) If it wasn't Box Office Mojo wouldn't have a list of 2016 YEARLY BOX OFFICE BY MPAA RATING, You are free to add the highest grossing PG and G rated film if you want. But the point is you can't remove my CONTRIBUTE to the article based on personal whim because 1.) I have a source proving it's a milestone and 2.) It is adding incite into the article. Also why is the first film to go three weekends on the chart a milestone? It happens every year. It should be removed.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

---