User talk:Iareallknowing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

reported for vandalism? at least tell me what you're refering to. and sign your post dummy. Iareallknowing (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Bennv3771. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wonder Woman (2017 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wonder Woman (2017 film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wow. all this over a single word. dude, i'll leave it alone. i'm not getting involved with creepy ideologues. and i'd appreciate if you kept of my page from now on. Iareallknowing (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BC/BCE[edit]

We have a guideline on era styles at WP:ERA which we expect editors to follow - once of course they've learned about it, we wouldn't expect new editors to know about it. I've reverted you at Sphinx as the article has been a BCE article for years. The era style used by a source isn't actually relevant unless it's a quote. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

my approach will be to follow the source. if the source says BCE, i'll use BCE, if BC or i'll use BC (for this reason i'll insist on using BC for the sphinx). it was just confusing to me to see both at first. Iareallknowing (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you will probably get blocked. We have guidelines just to prevent this sort of argument. Doug Weller talk 15:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for what? staying true to the source? not even on wiki is safe from politics it seems. Iareallknowing (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with politics. It would be the same if it were BC or BCE. Just as in an article about American we use American spellings and one about Britain uses British spellings, no matter what spelling the source uses, unless it's a quotation. It's for consistency and to stop editors from edit warring over which they prefer. It's simply the way we work. Doug Weller talk 15:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so it's politics. great... Iareallknowing (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No not politics. Why would you want the article to use both era styles? Using both BC and BCE in the same article is confusing to the reader. Paul August ☎ 16:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017, Part II[edit]

Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on Katherine Ann Dettwyler. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges. You can review your four last edits to this article here:

Revision #1, 09:46, 25 June 2017
Revision #2, 13:53, 28 June 2017
Revision #3, 14:19, 28 June 2017
Revision #4, 09:50, 29 June 2017

--SlackerDelphi (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it wasn't revert. also, there's an obvious witewashing attempt on the page. he comments were racist and sexist, at the very least controversial, since she got fired for it, yet if i attempt to highlight that in the title, i get an instant revert. THAT is non constructive editiong. Iareallknowing (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All four are reverts. One more revert and it will be a 3RR violation. If you want to edit the article with certain words then you need to find a reliable source that supports your word. Above, you state: "he comments were racist and sexist". First of all, the subject of the article is a "she" not a "he" and second you need to find a reliable source that uses the words "sexist" and "racist" and quote them. You are not a reliable source and you just can't quote yourself. I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis but it not up to me or you. You must use a reliable source. See: Wikipedia:RS. --SlackerDelphi (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'm getting more and more annoyed with the agenda driven BS on this site. keep it as you wish. i don't want to waste my time with ideologues to preocupied to push their narratives than make proper contributions. Iareallknowing (talk)14:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you don't know what you are talking about. But whatever. It's your choice.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

i'm talking about idologues (like you) that are policing this site. making sure the info we get is properly whitewashed. Iareallknowing (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I got your point. It was not too complex nor too subtle. It was simply wrong.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

of course it was. Iareallknowing (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]