I never claimed that Wikipedia articles are reliable sources. However, the subject of a Wikipedia article has to pass the stringent notability test. If they do that (and an article exists, i.e. blue link), then if they are obviously relevant to the list in question they are by extension noteworthy. Right? What is your verifiable proof that the products you readded to the list are noteworthy by Wikipedia's definition? If no one can verify the noteworthiness of an item in the list, then what is stopping anyone from adding anything (i.e. spam)? 45.83.220.164 (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Please change the information you have regarding my relative it is Incorrect, Sarahconifers1 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
That’s fine I don’t mind if that’s what you want to do ! report me I am only stating the truth and the correct information as the information on here is incorrect and misleading and I don’t understand what you mean when you say I assume ownership I’m confused 🤷♀️ Sarahconifers1 (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Your a very strange person ! Sarahconifers1 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I indeed declared a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia page of INRAE, as I work for the institution. However, I was just reporting a translation of the French Wikipedia page. The translation was not 100% complete, I just reported the main text, because it will take me some time to translate everything properly.
Also, your comment about merging (that I guess was referring to the merge between INRA and IRSTEA) is not applicable here, as the Wikipedia pages of the two former institutes should still exist.
Finally, yes, an admin has deleted my draft...while I was editing it to correct the issues..."speedy deletion" is ok, but that's a little bit too fast for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberto.tonda (talk • contribs) 16:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Why do you not want the correct spelling and information on Wikipedia Sarahconifers1 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I would expect Wikipedia to do its upmost best to make sure the information is correct and the spelling is correct or what is the point in having it at all if it’s misleading and wrong. If it can not or won’t be put correct I guess that is the way it will have to be! such a shame misleading information has to be printed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahconifers1 (talk • contribs)
Sorry, what was the problem with my revert? Any objections to moving this fringe use further down (i.e. the Research section), not above RA and all other well-established uses? Regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
When you cite research studies, you should make sure to cite a comprehensive list, not just those in favor of your opinion. If you cannot get a comprehensive opinion, the information should not be listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.46 (talk • contribs)
I'm talking about the voter ID page. Apparently you are only citing research whose conclusions are against it. People would like to see comprehensive opinions about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.134.204.46 (talk • contribs)
~~~~
Thepenguin9 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
In re:
Please stop your disruptive editing.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Requirements engineering, you may be blocked from editing. Unfortunately many disagree with the views as presented on Wikipedia. This, however, does not give you licence to censor it Thepenguin9 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
The criticism section is just shy of vandalism. No idea how it got there. It is the same as going to an article about antibiotics, finding one crank who disbelieves in the effectiveness of antibiotics and then adding a criticism section that says "there is no evidence that antibiotics are effective" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:C401:A310:69DD:AF57:3C20:2D85 (talk) 14:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know I undid your one of your huggle reversions. You reverted a user who was removing information added by a sockpuppet. Also the only source used was promotional / not independent. I presumed that you reverted the edit based only on the info on the huggle interface (i.e. a new user reverting a change). Your reversion was here [1]. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 18:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I’m changing it so it’s correct, what have I done wrong Derbyboy2890 (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Please example what i have done wrong Derbyboy2890 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
If you continue to use your bias on wiki, penguin, your personal information will be released and I hope it puts you in danger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.215.171 (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
No, you're a lying MAGAt and your life is about to change. Your time of biased editing is about to end — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B06B:AFE6:0:58:2A3A:4C01 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Lol, you act like I care, magat, what's going to be funnier is what's about to come your way, you lying, filthy MAGAt. Keep thinking you're protected by the other magats. Luk3, WIDR and you are about to experience some fun stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B06B:AFE6:0:58:2A3A:4C01 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Your blocked worked well...I took information directly on the Wikipedia page for Celebrity rehab and that hurt your little MAGATs feelings, so you try to hide the truth to protect Dr. Drew, who literally got 5 celebrities in 2 years killed due to his fake therapy...I hope you join them, sad, pathetic, discourse rigging MAGAT liars...People are going to eventually come for you and your little MAGAt loser buddy LUK3, your joke of laughing at a ban cracks me up, little guy, still here, will you be in a month? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B000:2153:213E:1D60:E62E:1644 (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I believe you got the wrong person. I reverted a change on the page Jessel that was spam. please give it another look. the user I reverted wrote "is a name of people who are nice but silly. People who have Beef with people named Leonardo Navarro." not sure how reverting that is non constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 00:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
um why tf did you change my edit Professarroocky (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
When you revert an edit, please remain in your sphere of knowledge. In French, 6th is VIème, or 6ème, never VIme. --217.136.38.137 (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Why did you did dat Wezy f baby 89 (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey, you Reverted this edit, the user that made the edit now asked at Help Desk § Corrections to my Wikipedia Bio why they were unable to edit the page (at least that's how I interpret the request). Though the edit was not entirely good, I'm not sure, why it was reverted in whole. Maybe you explain it to the user at the Help Desk. --Info-Screen::Talk 00:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Did not mean any intrusion. The titled article "checkerboard inn" is linked to an unofficial facebook page which in turn conflicts with my customer use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3007:2D9A:0:7D11:BBFA:4A30:3554 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Now this IP vandalizes talk pages. Just ban this IP already. As for me, I will never do 3RR again. Please mind that I just stood against a bully who idolizes Marko Šimić very much. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9l4YCIjtdA/?igshid=1san0hj71ae0 Open this...i just defend truth...flix you hear me again sure, disgrace of wiki
OPEN LINK DUDE...STOP REVERTING LIES!!!!
Hey, I see you try to defend Wikipedia with your actions, but too me it seems like this [3] evolved into an edit war. The IP Editor definitely does something wrong here, but I think we should WP:AGF and do dispute resolution, by talking to the editor, instead of just reverting in circles, even if that means that the worse version of the page is online for a longer time. Thanks for your work improving Wikipedia. --Info-Screen::Talk 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
You get banned for all tnx god!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
https://www.instagram.com/p/B9l4YCIjtdA/?igshid=1san0hj71ae0 FIRST WHO OPENS AND UPLOADS PROFILE PHOTO AS LOGO DID THE "HARD" JOB...THEY MUST BE ASHAMED TO USE WIKI NICKNAMES AND REVERTING WRONG UPDATES!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
YOU ARE BLIND SURELY...STAR ON TOP FOR 2018 TITLE...GET LOST SICK LIAR!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
logo is whats on jersey and star is there!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
https://id.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persija_Jakarta WHAT NOW CRAZY VANDALS ☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.0.201 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/id/9/94/Persija_Jakarta_logo.png Check carefully, few lines and colours different, its not only star but fake logo confirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.19.10 (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello sir, you have reverted my edit on the article (Special:Diff/945069576/945069687). I removed this claim Despite Trustpilot's claims of "no censoring", low ranking reviews are often removed (described by Trustpilot as the review being "taken offline") by the Trustpilot compliance Team where companies make allegations that the reviews breach Trustpilot's rules - even where this is demonstrably not the case. because neither of the sources provided back this, It seems to be biased and the original editor probably based this claim on original research, which is why is not within the Wikipedia guidelines. I kindly ask, why did you revert my edits? JavTehran (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
You shouldnt keep amending Omar Bogle to paint him in a complete positive light .Fact is he is a ok lower league player at best.He isnt Messi. Hence have you seen him play? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricky17890 (talk • contribs)
Baguadao. I not understand. this voice is terrible. It is possible that it cannot be changed. It questions any credibility of an encyclopedia itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.118.205 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Would you mind holding off a bit on this: I was just about to add something that helps notability. thanks--108.41.41.101 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I need the sections I am not comfortable with taken down. They are of too personal a nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather.Purser (talk • contribs) 17:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason you reverted my removal of the "Best places to dine" section on the Tetbury page, which is a clear violation of WP:PROMOTION? 78.148.2.98 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hag u Hag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.131.78.47 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
who are you ? a troll ? you dont have any right to chage anything i do . If you changed ill chacnge it many times mrore . stupid troll . and if you block my account ill create many more . you cant control our wihte hats . ill find you ! believe me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poskaer (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you please take a closer look at your revert? Trying to have a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.195.170 (talk)
Hello, as I stated in my most recent edit summary on 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Trinidad and Tobago, Trinidad and Tobago are in North America, not South America. 68.148.230.9 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Verifiability (WP:V) isn't the only inclusion criteria. Article content is decided by consensus. You're changes clearly do not have consensus as multiple editors have reverted it. Further, VANDALISM has a definition. You've falsely accused multiple editors of it. Stop. You are also edit warring. In short, the only editor there who is doing anything wrong is you. You're new, so if you stop, they'll be no problem. Wikipedia is not exactly intuitive. There's a lot to learn in order to contribute here successfully. John from Idegon (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
OMG, you're right. Anybody got a whale shark to smack me with? A trout ain't gonna do it. Sorry, Penguin. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Replying back down here. John from Idegon he did vandalise[6] my talk page. Twice[7]. Thepenguin9 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
What I stated was a factual assessment of the position Politifact took in trying to find a basis to describe a truthful description of Ryan's proposal as if it were "mostly" false. Politifact was widely ridiculed for the specious argument it advanced, a fact which is not reflected in the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.134.40 (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I see you had reverted an edit made by an editor on the Deportation page. Just wanted to let you know they reverted your revert. I undid their revert and wanted you to be aware. This person has been vandalizing pages with Russian and Serbian nationalist edits. Either deletion or false statements. Please be aware. Cheers! 74.101.190.2 (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the revert on Muttaburra, it was one of those multiple vandalism situations that I was trying to unpick and undid the wrong edit in the process. Kerry (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
"As an academic you should understand that your own personal research won't suffice. If you contest the claim, you must do it properly by stating that the criteria may not be stronger, and cite a source that says as much Thepenguin9 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)"
I replied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modified_condition/decision_coverage and I do contest the claim. Would you kindly follow-up on this please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr JohnHRobb (talk • contribs) 13:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
80.5.241.48 (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello Thepenguin9, the page Drill down was proposed for deletion by you. I find the page helpfull and would like to keep it. I reacted here. Please reply on that (or my talk) page. Thanks, --FlippyFlink (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
qedk (t 心 c) 14:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, please note that G13 only applies to articles that have not been edited for 6 months, as per WP:CSD, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)