June 2025
edit
Hello, I'm Annh07. I noticed that you recently removed content from Alien (franchise) 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. Annh07 (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'm GalStar. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GalStar (talk) (contribs) 07:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
King Kong
editPlease stop. Your unreasonable edits of King Kong are missing reliable source and violate WP:NOTFANPAGE policies. I can understand, that sometimes changes at topics dear to the heart seem hurtful, and I absolutely believe that you do all your edits in good faith. Nonetheless I would recommend you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources for a better understanding of what Wikipedia is for and what it isnt. Thanks, and have a nice day. :-) 93.230.218.55 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I understand if you might feel offended by some of the changes, but you need to take the discussion to the talk page before reverting the page to your preferred version, and elaborate more clearly on what your issues are. Also noting that you don't seem to take this much of an issue with the Godzilla article on the relevant subjects. You also need to more specifically explain what your problems are with the sources, especially as Wikipedia's "reliable sources" article is an incoherent mess. Take it to Talk! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 12:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Imgur, Amazon and some travel website containing nothing about the topic except some random byline do not fall unter WPs reliable sources. Everything is explained. In that case, there is nothing to discuss. You cannot simply revert edits because you dont like them, you have to give reasons, which you dont. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:4C1A:8C7B:CEBA:C4F5 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Why do these not count as "reliable sources"? Explain your reasoning, don't just make vague statements and refer to long articles with unclear application! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:RS. It is not vague, its all clearly written. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:D103:E7D2:FF50:DFC4 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not, the article is a long mess, and it's unclear which part of the article you're referring to and how you're applying it. Please explain and elaborate! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is your opinion. It works fine for most of the WP-editors. Please stop your uncivil and aggressive behavior. If you have something to discuss, take it to the talk page. But according to the WP rules, none of your edits in the King Kong article are reasonable. That may change in the future, if you find better sources, but so far, it is how it is. I thank you for your attention and wish you a nice day. :-) 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:9D72:770B:A237:303C (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- I've repeatedly urged you to take your disagreement to the talk page and you repeatedly refuse to do so. Don't come here with that passive aggressive nonsense. You need to clarify your reasoning in order for there to be agreement, you can't just demand it! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- That is your opinion. It works fine for most of the WP-editors. Please stop your uncivil and aggressive behavior. If you have something to discuss, take it to the talk page. But according to the WP rules, none of your edits in the King Kong article are reasonable. That may change in the future, if you find better sources, but so far, it is how it is. I thank you for your attention and wish you a nice day. :-) 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:9D72:770B:A237:303C (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's not, the article is a long mess, and it's unclear which part of the article you're referring to and how you're applying it. Please explain and elaborate! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
- See WP:RS. It is not vague, its all clearly written. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:D103:E7D2:FF50:DFC4 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Why do these not count as "reliable sources"? Explain your reasoning, don't just make vague statements and refer to long articles with unclear application! 185.113.97.246 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
- Imgur, Amazon and some travel website containing nothing about the topic except some random byline do not fall unter WPs reliable sources. Everything is explained. In that case, there is nothing to discuss. You cannot simply revert edits because you dont like them, you have to give reasons, which you dont. 2A02:810A:9A5:7A00:4C1A:8C7B:CEBA:C4F5 (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
July 2025
edit
Hi 185.113.97.246! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I sincerely hope you notified the other user who keeps reverting the content as well of this, and that they are also engaging in edit warring! I have urged them multiple times to take the dispute to the talk page, and they clearly have no intent of doing so. 185.113.97.246 (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
