User talk:Theanswerman109

Hello. If you're going to make sweeping changes like big deletions to article pages, you have to justify them in the edit summary or discuss them on the talk page. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment still applies today. Please do not remove sourced content from articles, especially without first gaining consensus on the talk page. Thanks. Angr (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing current articles in favor of discredited 2006 studies is not an acceptable change for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmydeandean (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I moved (did not delete) two items to give clarity to the order. The comments given by Pope John Paul II should be listed first since he was the pope at the time of the beginning of the apparitions. One entry was very vague and cited a book that is dubious in credibility. The citation was removed because statements by Church officials, as well as experiments done through the authority of the Church, should be given more credibility than statements made in low-circulation books by unknown authors.Theanswerman109 (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)19:13, 6 March 2013 Theanswerman109[reply]

Hello, I'm MrX. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Same-sex marriage, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - MrX 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you accusing certain editors of being "vandals" for deleting your POV tag at Same-sex marriage. On Wikipedia, "vandalism" has certain specific meanings and limitations that do not apply to the edits that you're concerned about, as tenacious as they may seem. If you'd like more information on what Wikipedia considers vandalism, you can find that at WP:VANDALISM. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theanswerman109. You have repeatedly inserted a POV tag into Same-sex marriage, against the objections of several editors, including myself. It appears that you may be edit warring, by insistently reinserting the tag while failing to contribute further to the ongoing talk page discussion. If you continue to edit war, and especially if you revert more than three edits in an article, you may be blocked from editing. Please help move the talk page discussion forward and please do not refer to other editors as hackers. Thank you. - MrX 13:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the message on my talk page - I hope I can be of some help. In the first place, I don't think it is a good idea to say the page has been "hacked by vandals". It was edited by well-meaning Wikipedia editors, and these are the people with whom you will need to work if you want to improve the article. Secondly, please don't edit war - and with four or five editors against you, it is one you are bound to lose. Thirdly, I don't really like removing npov tags, and I respect your point that it should remain until the issue has been resolved. However - fourthly - I looked for, but could not find, a reason to restore the tag. The thing is, I couldn't really follow your argument on the talk page. In other words, it is not clear what the issue is that needs to be resolved. It's not enough just to say it's neutrality - what in particular needs changing? StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Psychokinesis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Brigit of Kildare, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Changing the sourced content to the opposite of what is in the source, without adding a new source, is misrepresentation. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you deleted two quotes from two different books, claiming that one of the books showed that the quotes were inaccurate. That's simply not the case. One quote is from this book, the other from this one. At another article[1] you deleted a Harvard University Press book on the grounds the source seemed dubious (and lack of page number, but that's rarely a reason to delete a source). What seemed dubious about that? Ah, sorry, missed the fact that you deleted an Oxford University Press book also claiming that it was dubious. Frankly it looks to me, from your talk page edit, that you object to the content and because of that the source, but that's not a good reason to delete sources. Doug Weller talk 11:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Miracle of the Sun, 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. Charles (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]