User talk:98.123.126.45

March 2023[edit]

The KISSINGER page speaks or rhetoric and opinion. One person's opinion in an article does not equate to writing 'villified by many' or considered to be something negative by 'many', when they then listed one person's opinion in an article as a citation. That is ridiculous.

  GUMMMO entry: For about the millionth time, the media can't seem to understand the very simple concept of reading a MAP! Ohio is nowhere near 'the midwest' of the country of the United States. It does not matter how many people 'have come to thin k of it as the midwest' or how many times the media claims it to be the Midwest, claims are not facts. The FACT remains: Ohio is not geographically situated in the midwest. Therefore, it is incorrect to call Xenia, Ohio " an area.. .in the Midwest", as this Gummo article does. This should be removed. And all who write Ohio as 'Midwest' need to go back to Geography class in school.

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Duffey Strode. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. EnIRtpf09b (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you should limit your comments to others, as I didn't read all of what you wrote. Opinion? That is not what I give. I don't give 'opinion', honey , I give FACTS. IT IS YOU and others who write wikipedia articles that give opinions. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are confused. I am the one who mentioned the Kissinger article is full of 'opinion', so what are you talking about 'opinion' for? And I have no idea who Duffey Strode is, or to what you allude. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Searcy page: A better choice of word would be 'abusive' Frank (character in Fried Green Tomatoes) rather than use of the word 'malicious'. Consider changing it to be 'abusive'. It's much more accurate. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searcy page: There is someone under the 'talk' section of the Nick Searcy page who mentions his twitter page (lol) as 'rude'. Again, this is OPINION, and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BARBARA BENNETT entry. I have asked before that you remove the 'Louise Brooks' comment that is very crude and hurtful concerning the alleged suicide as a '...success', as that was supposedly a 5th suicide attempt for the actress.

July 2023[edit]

Hello! I'm Sahas P.. Your recent edit(s) to the page Barbara Bennett appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Sahas P. (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please include a source[edit]

Hello there, I had reverted your edit to the Barbara Bennett page because it seems you removed content that was truly sourced from some websites. Please be sure to add summaries and sources if you plan to remove or add any content. Thank you. Sahas P. (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sahas: Do not revert my edit, as it was correct. It is totally wrong to quote an actress from some book when it comes to speculation about Barbara Bennett's way of death. And that is what it is; mere speculation, which has no place in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia-type article. Secondly, what if that were YOUR friend or family member, and someone wrote 'her successful attempt at death' in reference to the alleged 4-5 suicide attempts made by Barbara Bennett? There was no proof of any of that in the article. Again, the Louise Brooks book quote is to be removed. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Achmad Rachmani. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Grace Kelly have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achmad: Did not appear 'constructive' to who? You? This is not a place for yours (or anyone else's) opinion. I speak facts, not opinions. Too much of 'wiki' consists of people's opinions. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CRAIG CASH ARTICLE " slightly" dim-witted? The character he played on The Royle family was very dim-witted, and this should be changed to say only 'dim-witted'. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

The recent edit you made to W. S. Gilbert was unconstructive and has been reverted. I notice that your edits to Wikipedia have nearly all been reverted. Instead of screaming in the edit summaries, go to the articles' talk pages and give a calm explanation of the changes you think ought to be made, citing your published, reliable sources supporting making such changes. You cannot just delete well-sourced information from articles, and in the case of the Gilbert article, you clearly do not understand the encyclopedic importance of the content. This encyclopedia is not an appropriate forum for social opinions. Thank you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever you are: Do you think your crazy reply was actually read?? People aren't 'screaming' when they write in caps, they are emphasizing. You need to learn the difference. And it's impossible to 'scream', as this is the internet. You sound crazy. Any replies you send to this will not be read. Stop cluttering up my page. 98.123.126.45 (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.