Edit to Liv and Maddie
I know that Wikia has a bad reputation for being a reliable spurce, but I don't know why. It is actually a lot like Wikipedia and believes very strongly in reliable sources and valid info. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- @188.8.131.52: Because, like Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. Therefore, it's not reliable. Amaury (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, this  is the second time you've given me a warning in the last 24 hours for making a constructive edit, this time reverting an unexplained date change. I think if this happens a third time, wherein you revert and warn me without taking the time to check the context, I'll request third party assistance. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:C97D:45FC:C8AB:394E (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- @2601:188:0:ABE6:C97D:45FC:C8AB:394E: With all the actual disruptive editing that actually does happen, it's quite easy to misidentify good edits as bad ones. In addition, it's also quite easy to forget who's who when it comes to IPs. Plenty of other people with an unusual IP like yours have vandalized quite extensively in the past. Cheers! Amaury (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- I know--I've made well over 50,000 edits as a registered account, and probably another 10,000 or more anonymously. I've rarely given out unwarranted warnings, and usually take a few extra seconds, or even minutes, to assess the situation. Circumspection re: profiling of IPs is necessary. 2601:188:0:ABE6:C97D:45FC:C8AB:394E (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
A Non-Constructive Edit?
184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)I think my suggested addition to the page re Choco Taco in popular culture is quite constructive. The Choco Taco demonstrates the impact on American consumer culture of the mass-marketing of pseudo-ethnic products. The MC Paul Barman reference, comparing this to the effects of French Colonialism on Morocco, is a relevant comment on modern society. Being a reference to sociology in pop music, directly referencing the product, this seems to be constructive in demonstrating the cultural impact of this product, and similar products. Would you kindly explain why this is non-constructive?