User talk:Miwho
January 2024[edit]
Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kabbalah Centre 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. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- How is what i said not constructive. CLEARING THE CENTRES name is not constructive. DONT DELETE it again DUDE Miwho (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- If you can find a better source than "spoke to the IRS" I'll let you keep it. Maybe. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Miwho (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Kabbalah Centre. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Miwho! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Kabbalah Centre. Geardona (talk to me?) 22:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Philip Berg. Geardona (talk to me?) 22:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- (Personal attack removed) Miwho (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- need i say more? Miwho (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, thanks. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 23:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- need i say more? Miwho (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)- you people make it too difficult to try to understand this procdess. forget it and im never donating to wiki again. that someone can just remove my additions to a page because they know how to use system and they are vandelizing not me... I just added legitimate material and they didnt like it an deleted it.... Miwho (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, the process is just basic stuff like "don't insult other editors", "don't write in all caps" and "give published sources for your claims". It's not that people like it or not, it's just that it's completely unverifiable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- How can i if no news media followed up their articles. The IRS is a unreliable source? Just because i don't work for the media, im unreliable? i see sources where people just put friend or something and it's on a page Miwho (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, if someone uses as source "a friend told me so" it should be removed too. Do you have any examples?Also, it's not about being unreliable because of who you work or don't work for: if a journalist wrote stuff on Wikipedia it would be the same result. The essence is that Wikipedia is a place that compiles things already published elsewhere, rather than a place where people can write their own research. If it has been published (not necessarily in the media, but, say, in a book, or a scientific article, or anything with standards of what can be published), it can be added to Wikipedia. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying for me. I offer amends. I don't know how wiki really works. i saw something that was offended by that none of these IRS FBI accusations being followed up that case was closed with The Kabbalah Centre and The Bergs being innocent. I just tried to update and inform others who may be left with a wrong impression of of The Kabbalah Centre and The Bergs. sometimes my Schizophrenia gets the better of me. Again Amends Miwho (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, if someone uses as source "a friend told me so" it should be removed too. Do you have any examples?Also, it's not about being unreliable because of who you work or don't work for: if a journalist wrote stuff on Wikipedia it would be the same result. The essence is that Wikipedia is a place that compiles things already published elsewhere, rather than a place where people can write their own research. If it has been published (not necessarily in the media, but, say, in a book, or a scientific article, or anything with standards of what can be published), it can be added to Wikipedia. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- How can i if no news media followed up their articles. The IRS is a unreliable source? Just because i don't work for the media, im unreliable? i see sources where people just put friend or something and it's on a page Miwho (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, the process is just basic stuff like "don't insult other editors", "don't write in all caps" and "give published sources for your claims". It's not that people like it or not, it's just that it's completely unverifiable. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)