User talk:CDoug17

April 2024

Hello, I'm Wiiformii. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kevin Harlan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Wiiformii (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Mike Breen, you may be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is that unsourced or poorly sourced? bro that took me a long time to write all of that, and who are you anyways? CDoug17 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See our page about weasel words. Q ^{T C} 22:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OverlordQ: What do weasel words have to do with this user? I must be missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all those quotes could get a {{By whom}} tag. Q ^{T C} 23:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean instead of removing them as I did with a warning? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me, and I still don't get what that has to do with weasel words.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

listen, I'm new to this and I don't know what y'all are talking about, I just added some Mike breen phrases and yall took it down CDoug17 (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When adding content such as this to articles, you need to provide references to reliable sources supporting that content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your post at the Teahouse: sometimes frank talk isn't appreciated there (it might scare away other new good faith editors), so I'll do it here: I would imagine part of the reason for any brusqueness you experienced was your first edit here: [1]. It's annoying when someone is being a jerk, but then whines when people aren't all sweetness in return. I'd recommend apologizing, never doing that again, and being thankful you weren't blocked right after your first edit. If you're going down a different path now, that's great news - it doesn't happen that often - but don't complain when people don't treat you like a princess when you just finished vandalizing. Clear? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam and everyone else, the teahouse post read to me like a troll. So, I checked the one edit that had not been discussed. And sure enough, it was a fake reference[2]. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say, I recommend that everyone should stop being nice and either go with a final warning or an indef. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bro, why was I blocked, I didn't mean to do anything bad this is literally my second day on the site and I just was trying to help, I try to help and for it I get blocked, bro CDoug17 (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed your talk page access for lying about it, bro. Please play somewhere else. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the first edit was my brother and I didn't even see it till I got the notification ong CDoug17 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's such an unconvincing argument that it even has its own essay. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for intentional vandalism, trolling, incompetence, or some combination.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it, thanks, Floq. And thanks to Usedtobecool for pointing out the fake ref.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how Is that a fake ref bro this is my 2nd day I swear I read the article and it didnt look fake CDoug17 (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Lois Green, an Australian actress. The biography you cited was about Lois Green Carr, an American historian. You cited to it for the proposition that the actress returned to Australia in 1946; your reference doesn't mention Australia anywhere in the bio. Carr was born in 1922 and died in 2015, whereas Green was born in 1914 and died in 2006. You expect anyone to believe that you read the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]