Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Critical race theory. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! 2001:871:237:2AF5:AD5B:2170:74F:CE7D ( talk) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another User has already told you why it was removed. more then once, AGF no longer is feasibly assumable. LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello LakesideMiners. If you check my sources, you will see that my edit on the Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon article is a relevant topic in this article, and my sources are also widely cited in other anime-related articles. It is widely discussed in Japanese circles and is a big part of the reception towards this anime. The previous anonymous user has accused me of coordinating an attack when this is relevant to the article. I do not even know what relationship they are referring to. Kindly revise. FloRodrick ( talk) 14:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I replied to you on your talk page, all further talk should be on the articles talk page. LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, recently a user has tried to add a controversy section to the page: Our Lady of Fátima
/info/en/?search=Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#CITEREFDe_Marchi1952a
the problem is that the sources they are using are flimsy at best, a book written 40 years after the fact through here say interviews, and to add insult to injury the editor does not faithfully relate what is in the book, for example the book states that the children of Fatima practiced fasting and contrition, so the editor changed that to "the children committed suicide by starving themself" and that summarizes every point in their controversy section, it is no more than cherry picking, personal opinions and taking statements out of context, in fact no a single authority on the subject ever claimed such points as controversy in the last 100 years or so, i tried to reason with the editor but they are being very stubborn and childish. please help with this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
hello, i tried to reason with Spyrazzle, point by point, his editing of the page page is no more then personal opinions and interpretations of some flimsy sources, please protect this page as it is considered very important to people of faith and not a place for childish antics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP MODERATE
- I am sorry to bother you. The same user is tampering again with the controversy section. Using a different screen name, they have added all of these "citation needed" markings to the controversy section. I have already cited everything properly. They are just deleting my citations, deleting several sentences, and trying to convince people that there are no credible sources. They also know I can't revert anymore without getting kicked off Wikipedia. Could you enlist a few of your editor friends to monitor this page? This grotesque "miracle" could harm children. Parents need to know the facts. Thank you. Spyrazzle ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to revert his last edits, but there were so many that I can't. He's using alternate screen names and enlisting people as well. Now thewhole controversy section is destroyed. If you can please revert back to the one from 5 or 6 am this morning. Please help. I'm not techie enough to do this. Spyrazzle ( talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Spyrazzle (
talk ·
contribs) and
Fadi153 (
talk ·
contribs) Please do not comment on my talk page. Keep it on the articles talk page.
LakesideMiners
Come Talk To Me! 17:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to comment on your talk page again , but i have to since he is ot acting in good faith, this is what i have written in the talk section, i believe my points are very reasonable, if the editor Spyrazzle does not make the changes would you be kind enough to step in and remove the controversy section???
the controversy section is very misleading, all of your points come from de marchi's book which IS a flimsy source and to add insult to injury you add your twist and interpretations to his words, you are not dealing in good faith, only interested in adding your personal displeasure of the apparitions and make it seem as a legit controversial points when they are not, fasting becomes suicide, a nightmare becomes demon possession, acts of contrition becomes self harm, and finally and unsubstantiated claim about an unfulfilled prophecy about ww1 taken from de marchi's book, and never ever mentioned in the thousands of other sources on the subject, i tried to explain to you that people faith and beliefs are issues that you should not troll, but you still show your deep bigotry. to summarize, unless you can find another respectable source beside an out of print book written by here say accounts after 40 years from the events then you need to drastically change the controversy section,all entries frm de marchi's book ned o be scraped or at least do the following: change the language, don't write the statement as matter of fact, write de marchi wrote in his book that people he interviewed claimed so and so, keep in mind he never interviewed any of the children even lucia who was almost impossible to get access to her during her life, and yet you claim de marchi as a close friend of hers which is not true. you can keep the entries from lucias memoirs about the blood on the penitence cords, keep it word for word and do not add your spin to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you like knowing Beasley had to be vaccinated to play at smu? FJM, Esq ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Critical race theory. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! 2001:871:237:2AF5:AD5B:2170:74F:CE7D ( talk) 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another User has already told you why it was removed. more then once, AGF no longer is feasibly assumable. LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello LakesideMiners. If you check my sources, you will see that my edit on the Yashahime: Princess Half-Demon article is a relevant topic in this article, and my sources are also widely cited in other anime-related articles. It is widely discussed in Japanese circles and is a big part of the reception towards this anime. The previous anonymous user has accused me of coordinating an attack when this is relevant to the article. I do not even know what relationship they are referring to. Kindly revise. FloRodrick ( talk) 14:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I replied to you on your talk page, all further talk should be on the articles talk page. LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 14:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, recently a user has tried to add a controversy section to the page: Our Lady of Fátima
/info/en/?search=Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima#CITEREFDe_Marchi1952a
the problem is that the sources they are using are flimsy at best, a book written 40 years after the fact through here say interviews, and to add insult to injury the editor does not faithfully relate what is in the book, for example the book states that the children of Fatima practiced fasting and contrition, so the editor changed that to "the children committed suicide by starving themself" and that summarizes every point in their controversy section, it is no more than cherry picking, personal opinions and taking statements out of context, in fact no a single authority on the subject ever claimed such points as controversy in the last 100 years or so, i tried to reason with the editor but they are being very stubborn and childish. please help with this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
hello, i tried to reason with Spyrazzle, point by point, his editing of the page page is no more then personal opinions and interpretations of some flimsy sources, please protect this page as it is considered very important to people of faith and not a place for childish antics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP MODERATE
- I am sorry to bother you. The same user is tampering again with the controversy section. Using a different screen name, they have added all of these "citation needed" markings to the controversy section. I have already cited everything properly. They are just deleting my citations, deleting several sentences, and trying to convince people that there are no credible sources. They also know I can't revert anymore without getting kicked off Wikipedia. Could you enlist a few of your editor friends to monitor this page? This grotesque "miracle" could harm children. Parents need to know the facts. Thank you. Spyrazzle ( talk) 16:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
- I tried to revert his last edits, but there were so many that I can't. He's using alternate screen names and enlisting people as well. Now thewhole controversy section is destroyed. If you can please revert back to the one from 5 or 6 am this morning. Please help. I'm not techie enough to do this. Spyrazzle ( talk) 16:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Spyrazzle (
talk ·
contribs) and
Fadi153 (
talk ·
contribs) Please do not comment on my talk page. Keep it on the articles talk page.
LakesideMiners
Come Talk To Me! 17:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to comment on your talk page again , but i have to since he is ot acting in good faith, this is what i have written in the talk section, i believe my points are very reasonable, if the editor Spyrazzle does not make the changes would you be kind enough to step in and remove the controversy section???
the controversy section is very misleading, all of your points come from de marchi's book which IS a flimsy source and to add insult to injury you add your twist and interpretations to his words, you are not dealing in good faith, only interested in adding your personal displeasure of the apparitions and make it seem as a legit controversial points when they are not, fasting becomes suicide, a nightmare becomes demon possession, acts of contrition becomes self harm, and finally and unsubstantiated claim about an unfulfilled prophecy about ww1 taken from de marchi's book, and never ever mentioned in the thousands of other sources on the subject, i tried to explain to you that people faith and beliefs are issues that you should not troll, but you still show your deep bigotry. to summarize, unless you can find another respectable source beside an out of print book written by here say accounts after 40 years from the events then you need to drastically change the controversy section,all entries frm de marchi's book ned o be scraped or at least do the following: change the language, don't write the statement as matter of fact, write de marchi wrote in his book that people he interviewed claimed so and so, keep in mind he never interviewed any of the children even lucia who was almost impossible to get access to her during her life, and yet you claim de marchi as a close friend of hers which is not true. you can keep the entries from lucias memoirs about the blood on the penitence cords, keep it word for word and do not add your spin to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadi153 ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Why don't you like knowing Beasley had to be vaccinated to play at smu? FJM, Esq ( talk) 19:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)