User talk:Eidako

Verifiability and self-published sources

Hi Eidako, please do not cite self-published sources such as animesenpai.net. The existence of other bad citations does not justify the creation of another bad citation. Thanks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to balance a page that's full of self-published sources. Either we need to get rid of the others, or we need to create a neutral standpoint. ~ Eidako (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then delete the others you hypocrite. ~ Eidako (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to remove other unreliable citations, but please be careful not to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please also remain civil when interacting with other editors. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with ToBeFree here. animesenpai.net is not a good source and the High Guardian Spice page is NOT full of self-published sources, not at all. Adding one questionable source does not "balance" a page. That's not how this works. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated notification

There is, or was, a short question at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#High_Guardian_Spice that has been answered already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

add user page

pls make a short user page for easier communication CringeButSerious (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please be aware that WP:BLP applies to the talk page. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 20:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Talk:Keffals. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for misuse of talk page and attacks. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- ferret (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]