User talk:Lessthanjake328

February 2024

Hello, I'm Soetermans. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Homelander have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am removing the point because it is an opinionated piece with a clear political and social slant. There are many opinions out there and putting those opinions in the header of an entry is inappropriate.

for example, there are also many who share an opinion that the homeland is a racist stereotype of white Americans and white descendants of Europeans

There are also many other opinions regarding many different aspects of the character, yet none of these are present

my edit is relevant because it is removing irrelevant opinions with a clear motive

thank you Lessthanjake328 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to disagree with the websites listed. Please leave the references for what they are and feel free to contact them instead. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my comment, you will see my point Lessthanjake328 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "see your point". Stop removing the bit. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't belong. Stop vandalizing constructive edits Lessthanjake328 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Homelander. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern as to my constructive edits being misunderstood as they are a removal of content, however the content is an inappropriate opinion piece which is out of place and references articles with clear bias. This piece does not belong and I appreciate, as a caring member of the editing community, that you respect improvements made to articles. Thank you Lessthanjake328 (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Homelander. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot call yourself "a caring member of the editing community" when you created your account February 7 and, coincidentally, have made 7 edits, all concerning the same removal of the very properly sourced reference in article. I do not seem to get through to you, so I'll add in bold: stop removing the bit. I have issued you a final warning. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have as much right to ensure quality content on this site as you do. Lessthanjake328 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Give me one good reason why this politically biased, offensive, racist opinion piece with it's racist, offensive citations belongs on this article. Lessthanjake328 (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How in the world are you deleting my comments on this thread? Lessthanjake328 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not deleting anything here. You WP: DIDNTHEARTHAT, but you simply disagree with the sources. That's fine. But those are reliable sources and you not agreeing with them is zero reason to remove them. Also, we're talking about a fictional character. Please stop wasting your and my time and go find something else to do. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 23:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soetermans@Jauerback In what way are those reliable sources? Let's say you were adding those citations to this article. Defend why those articles are actually reliable and not politically biased. Until then, they will continue to be removed. This will not be left alone.

Thank you for your response in defense of the articles. Until that point, they will be deemed "pending" status. Lessthanjake328 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback@SoetermansYou are right. This is a fictional character. Also the United States is a real place and this character is a racist stereotype. You should probably find something better to do than to keep adding an article which bolsters your political biases. Lessthanjake328 (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely 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 ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 07:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]