User talk:Bertlookslikebowler

Red face...

Thanks for your work against the vandalism account Motorbreath420. I have now blocked the account. Unfortunately, though, when I was looking into the vandalism, I mistakenly thought you were vandalising too, so I blocked your account. I realised my mistake very soon, and unblocked, but I apologise for the mistake. JBW (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JBW, it's a pleasure to meet you! No worries regarding the mistake, these things happens! Thank you very much for having my back, yes, as we can see the user had already been warned multiple times. Keep up all your good work on Wikipedia, continue to inspire the community - the world needs you! I wish you have a good day ahead :) Bertlookslikebowler (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as User talk:Adakiko are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bert, please read the warning on Blaze Wolf's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Katy Perry, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 19:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore, please refrain from inserting deliberate fabrications. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good thing you are here, SNUGGUMS. Firstly, what do you mean by "disruptive editing?" Why do you think your statement is correct? She never mentioned about her own birth year on social media. Hence, either year can be true. Bertlookslikebowler (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah has intentionally been ambiguous in a playful sort of way, but this undeniably shows that 1969 is correct, contrary to popular belief. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, "ambiguous in a playful sort of way"... You actually expect me to believe that? You are saying this statement in a way that you are living with her everyday, which I bet you're not. And worse, you actually expect everyone to believe that. In a court of law, if you mention statements like that without any concrete evidence, do you expect the judge to believe your words??

What I meant is she jokingly has claimed in interviews to have "anniversaries" instead of birthdays without giving an exact number. No, I don't live with her every day nor do I expect those convinced of 1970 to give up so easily on that year, but if that was accurate then there's no way a birth announcement for Mariah would've been printed in 1969. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, to answer your question regarding the newspaper article, it may not be true as well. There could be various reasonings: i) The newspaper industry may be bribed to falsify that statement. ii) Yes, it was stated "Mariah Carey" and "Alfred Roy Carey" there, representing her and her father. However, what if it was a coincidence? The United States is a huge country with a population of more than 300 million people. Another "Alfred Roy Carey" could've given birth to another "Mariah Carey". iii) That picture could just be made up by any individual, making everyone believing that 1969 is the correct birth year. Considering these points, why do you think your edit of 1969 is worthy? Bertlookslikebowler (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS: Additionally, regardless which birth year is correct, I will persist on removing 1969 until she herself mentions it. I would just like to make it clear that as a huge fan of hers, it is very disturbing that I am likely believing in false information. Bertlookslikebowler (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS: And one more thing, previously you mentioned that "she jokingly has claimed..." I would like to challenge you here. Is this a fact or an opinion? If it is a fact, what evidence do you have to backup this "fact" and if it is an opinion, do you think you can use it in a debate or court of law? You are blatantly presenting information according to your feelings here, which is wrong.

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Heartfox (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've revoked your ability to edit this page. Appeal instructions are in the block notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Beeblebrox (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]