User talk:2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51

July 2023[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ray Epps (military veteran). That's not true. I think the only thing that may have been considered "disruptive" was that my changes didn't appear to be posting so I tried multiple times, not realizing that at the same time someone else was deleting them! LOL - Anyway, if you read through the "talk" section, the admin and I agreed on the content - it was just one word that we differed on and I am trying to clarify which word should be used.

Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please discuss the issue on the talk page. CT55555(talk) 22:38, 13 July 2023 (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.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Mindy McCready, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's poorly sourced or unsourced? The quote the change that I made "In the days that followed, an unidentified friend of McCready's told Fox News "Mindy really loved her dog, and that would not have been an act of malice at all." is cited by the same CMT article that was already used as a source in the article. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact quote from the article that is already in use as a source (which is why I didn't cite the source since it was already in use - All I didn't was extract more information from it)

"An unidentified source who claimed to be close to McCready told Fox News, "Mindy really loved her dog, and that would not have been an act of malice at all. It would have been more of a case where she just didn't want to leave the dog alone." Two other dogs on the property were unharmed, authorities said." https://www.cmt.com/news/3y884r/mindy-mccready-killed-dog-before-taking-her-own-life 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I DID was extract more information from it (not didn't - Typo) 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:CD62:E06F:3A6D:5E51 (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2023 (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.

That ref is not in the article. There's a dead link, and a working link that does not contain the quote. For that matter, even if it were properly sourced, I see no reason to add anything about some unnamed person's personal opinion about why she killed the dog. let alone a direct quote. Meters (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just clicked on it too and it is a dead link. I looked at the title of the article and saw that it was the same one that I was reading so I didn't bother replacing it when I was making my edit. Here is the link to the article though if you'd like properly source it. It is #52. You pointed out that it was a dead source but it probably doesn't make any sense, nor help anyone out, to leave it that way. https://www.cmt.com/news/3y884r/mindy-mccready-killed-dog-before-taking-her-own-life 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:2DE8:F772:372F:2640 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I thought just saying "she shot the dog" would be interpreted as she hated the dog or hated animals etc. I was trying to add a little more context so that readers could get a little more insight into her mental illness and her potential rationale, even though it was severely distorted because of her mental state. I admit, that was in large part because I have sympathy for the tremendous mental issues she had been battling over the years, but I also know that my personal feelings shouldn't play a part so I understand the reversion. 2603:8080:7200:A0FA:2DE8:F772:372F:2640 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.