User talk:LuniZunie: Difference between revisions

Line 286: Line 286:

::Only the first time when all was deleted, that was an error. [[Special:Contributions/2604:3D09:9284:2500:94A7:5EAD:1B6F:3A54|2604:3D09:9284:2500:94A7:5EAD:1B6F:3A54]] ([[User talk:2604:3D09:9284:2500:94A7:5EAD:1B6F:3A54|talk]]) 18:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Based of the actions of your first edit, me and other editors determined that this was not enough to explain that much deletion. {{Linear-gradient text|#fb0|#f0b|text=– [[User:LuniZunie|”LuniZunie”]] ツ|direction=right}}([[User talk:LuniZunie|talk]]) 18:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

== A Barnstar for you ==

{| style=”border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;”

|rowspan=”2″ style=”vertical-align:middle;” | [[File:Barnstar_of_Reversion2.png|100px]]

|rowspan=”2″ |

|style=”font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;” | ”’The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar”’

|style=”vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;” | You’re getting these reverts in so quick, I can’t tell how many times I’ve edit conflicted with you in the past few minutes, just a few seconds behind. Happy Editing–”'[[User:IAmChaos|IAm]][[User talk:IAmChaos|Chaos]]”’ 21:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

|}[[Category:Wikipedians who received barnstars for fighting vandalism]]<!–template:The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar–>

If you are here because I removed your edit, please read the following before leaving a talk page message.

Please keep in mind it is possible that I have made a mistake.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Thank you! LuniZunie (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LuniZunie Thanks for undoing your mistake against misunderstanding about vandalism.[1] 154.205.144.180 (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I read your edits too fast at first and realized they were fine after I undid them. LuniZunie (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand. Thank you for your hard work and defending Wikipedia from vandals. 154.205.144.180 (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LuniZunie. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page’s latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional “status” on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you’re not sure about something, ask!

I’m sure you’ll do great with rollback, and feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate use of rollback. If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I’ll remove it. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators’ guide/Rollback (even though you’re not an admin) and Wikipedia:Rollback. Good luck and thanks! Brandon (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plurality%20%28identity%29&diff=1315989463 edits] came directly from a long-standing source (attributed) 24.155.147.109 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this seems to have been a mistake on my part. Will remove your warning and will re-revert the edit. LuniZunie 21:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right after you get rollback rights /sarcastically demeaning Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 21:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

still learning how to use huggle 😔 LuniZunie 21:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You’ve been whacked with a wet trout.

Don’t take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Here’s a trout tho! All good, I was confused but it did seem like a mistake. 24.155.147.109 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Glad someone finally used the trout!! LuniZunie 21:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Mobile) I’Ve only had to use it twice and both times it was because of a bad rv/rb Flower (she/her; User talk:IPOfAFlower) 21:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, mistakes happen but luckily they seem rather rare. LuniZunie 21:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh That was definitely a first!! Very funny because I modeled my user page after seeing your user page while checking through a version history for a random article. LuniZunie 02:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, now that’s a first for me! ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You’ve been whacked with a wet trout.

Don’t take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: Vandalism on Wikipedia

They are definitely not WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, so a report to WP:AIV wouldn’t be premature – I suggest we do that – in-house primate monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good call. LuniZunie 17:11, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! They got blocked, however it seems as if they are going to sockpuppet based on a message on the talk page… LuniZunie 17:22, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m doing my Welcoming Committee duties; I’ll look out for vandalism or socks if I find any monkey_smashing^keyboards (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good revert, but the user who made that edit is a sockpuppet of a long-term sockfarm and will absolutely waste your time if given the opportunity. See the SPI here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, will keep note. LuniZunie 17:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! LuniZunie 17:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The update on our page that you just reversed was requested by our current association President. He asked that we remove Notable Members & Contributions. Could you please reverse your removal? Thank you.

Academic Neuro Fan (talk) Academic Neuro Fan (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is a Conflict of Interest issue. LuniZunie 18:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is removing mention of early notable members to the field of Neurology or the association a conflict on interest? Plenty of neurology association pages don’t include that information. It is at the request of our current President. If you are going to make a decision, the least you can do is explain it. 73.195.180.68 (talk) 73.195.180.68 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI. LuniZunie 18:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I replied. You are not a member of this association, and it’s inappropriate for you to make assumptions about what would constitute a conflict of interest. Academic Neuro Fan (talk) Academic Neuro Fan (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you’re mistaken. Based on the linked Wiki, it’s not a CoI. What IS a CoI is only including very few “notable members and contributions” to the Wiki page. As a 150 year association, we can’t link every single member or President’s notable contributions so it is better that it is removed entirely.

Academic Neuro Fan (talk) Academic Neuro Fan (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing my update where I am just adding the association’s logo??????? Academic Neuro Fan (talk) Academic Neuro Fan (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why I am making edit requests on Talk:Rape of males is because I want forced penetration to be recognized as rape. 2A0A:EF40:13E7:A201:BCB8:EC63:D890:67EC (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your request was already declined with a reason, continuous requests waste administrator’s time and will not change anything. That is why i removed your requests. LuniZunie 18:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you implement my edit requests, then I will stop making continuous requests. 2A0A:EF40:13E7:A201:BCB8:EC63:D890:67EC (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how it works. As a warning, you may be blocked because of this behaviour. LuniZunie 18:49, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my second edit request after realizing that the first edit request was grammatically incorrect. Why is it so hard for you not to implement my edit request. 2A0A:EF40:13E7:A201:BCB8:EC63:D890:67EC (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m PurpleSugarLoaf. I noticed that you recently removed content from H. R. Dietz without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don’t worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. PurpleSugarLoaf (talk) 21:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, I’m still getting used to huggle and I keep forgetting I have to check if it is a draft page before reverting an edit; completely my fault and I have reverted the edit. In the future however, this would not be the correct template to warn a user with. LuniZunie 21:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for clarifying — I was worried it was deliberate vandalism. No harm done! 🙂 PurpleSugarLoaf (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I’m a novice and thought that was the template I was meant to use! PurpleSugarLoaf (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair this was a rare case for you to face, but I would next time just shoot them a message on their talk page (asking about the warning / revert) if they are the one warning you. LuniZunie 23:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t bother revert warring with obvious trolls. Just report those disgusting edits to an admin and let the matter be. Do not feed the trolls! Java Hurricane 14:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay sounds good, thanks for letting me know. LuniZunie 14:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate because it doesn’t seem many admins are online right now. LuniZunie 14:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i know u can lowk understand this Bruhjustcallme1 (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wait nvm your a arsenal fan Bruhjustcallme1 (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The sources are already there. I didn’t need to add any new ones, it was just saying what was in the sources without being misleading. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambo Apocalypse Can you link the edit? It may have been a mistake on my part. LuniZunie 17:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valorie_Curry&oldid=1316468730

Why don’t you read the actual stuff you’re editing before reverting it instead of making 500 edits per hour removing other people’s contributions? You wouldn’t make mistakes like that if you did. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One mistake per 500 edits is a pretty good ratio… Please be careful with how you speak, you are currently coming off as very aggresive. LuniZunie 17:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you can’t possibly be checking the quality of the contributions you’re removing. You assume it’s 1 in 500 mistakes, the reality is far more likely that most of the people whose contributions you erroneously remove can’t be bothered arguing with you, especially new users. It’s very unwelcoming, and it’s plain rude to not bother checking if your reversions are correct and copy and paste a message to people asking them tell you if you’ve made a mistake. It’s putting the onus on them to make the effort you can’t be bothered making, when they may have already made it with their edit.

Chill out, take your time, and make sure you get it right before clicking publish. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I do check over the edits I revert, I reverted your edits by mistake and have already explained this to you. It’s incredibly hypocritical to claim I “assume” and am “plain rude” when you have just made multiple assumptions about my process of editing while continuing to hold a rude attitude. LuniZunie 18:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that Rambo Apocalypse is making is that you don’t intend to come across as rude when making these edits, but that’s how they can be perceived by the person you’re reverting. So I think what they mean is, stop and think before you hit that revert button and ask yourself “is what I’m doing improving the encyclopedia?” and “how would I feel if somebody did this to me?” Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thats what Im saying. I understand that these edits can come across as rude. However, again, this was a pretty unique mistake and I have already both apologised for it and reverted it. LuniZunie 19:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambo Apocalypse Ah, seems like a mistake on my part, apologies. LuniZunie 17:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I noticed you rejected my edit to the introduction to the Battle of Guadalajara page as not reliably sourced.
However, what I wrote is both written and sourced elsewhere in that very Wikipedia article – see section ‘Aftermath’, first paragraph.
Former-Prime Minister David Lloyd-George calling the battle “the Italian skedaddle” is in the final sentence of that paragraph, and there is a source confirming it.
I wanted to include this content in the introduction section, as I think the current text doesn’t bring across the extent to which it was viewed both at the time and since as a big defeat for Mussolini’s forces. All the sources to confirm this are in the first paragraph of the ‘Aftermath’ section.
Kind regards,
Idehill01 Idehill01 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, mistake on my part. I did in fact revert your changes because of the quote not being cited, and I missed that it had a citation elsewhere when scanning. Apologies, will re-revert and remove warning. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for sorting that out. Have a great day. Idehill01 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as User talk:173.242.191.98, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Mfield (Oi!) 21:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mfield Okay so I know that this isn’t actually a warning, but is there a reason that this template is used for non-warning cases if it always carries a warning tone? Is there no other alternative that just mentions a speedy deletion without starting with “Please do not introduce inappropriate pages”? /genq – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Twinkle created that warning by mistake when i deleted the page as vandalism, I neglected to uncheck notify page creator. Disregard entirely. Mfield (Oi!) 21:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, all good! – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 21:12, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fast and attentive

AdriSoft (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you rolling back an edit in a clearly American language and origin into british. That is abusing your rollback privileges, as so many british with that privilege do! My edit was in good faith. I am not going to fight this crap, but it seems like there are some people rather having a bad article than an American English article.
I hope I am putting this in the right place by the way. If not, my apologies. 69.181.8.174 (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is my fault, I thought it was a British article for some reason. Remember to sign your posts and talk page additions always go to the bottom. Happy editing =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signature partly readable against grey highlight and green background

Pretty signature visible without interference from scripts

Hi @LuniZunie, I didn’t mention this earlier because I have a bunch of user scripts installed and wasn’t sure whether one of these might be causing the issue. Turns out that when I have User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple adding a grey highlight to your username, your signature is unreadable, but when I also have c:User:Jack who built the house/Convenient Discussions adding light green to new comments, your signature becomes visible. I had to change to a logged-out window to see your intended look! Having investigated this, I don’t think you have any obligation to change your signature, but I’m leaving this more as a note to others who might have similar highlighting scripts that obscure your signature somehow.

@Novem Linguae and Jack who built the house: any idea what’s going on here? I’m kind of scared of CSS in general. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Likely because I’m using a text shadow? I just changed my signature today. Are you able to read this?:

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk)

real signature here: – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised the old signature doesn’t work either. It must be because of the gradient and how Wikipedia layers gradients and backgrounds? – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 00:49, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn’t realise you’d changed it between the 10th and today. It’s starting to look like it might be a UserHighlighterSimple issue. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ClaudineChionh Okay so I know a bit of CSS and I downloaded the script. Basically what is happening is that the gradient in my name requires the use of a CSS background, so the CSS makes a mask in the shape of the text, and applies the mask to the element so that the background is shown where the text should be (essentially setting the text color to the background). The problem is that the User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple script applies a background behind the user page link, but the page link background is drawn above the gradient background, so the gradient mask (which colors the text) is basically being drawn over by the script, so you can’t see my name. The reason you can see my new signature, is because it uses a text-shadow along with the gradient, and a text-shadow appears over a background in CSS, meaning you can slightly see the shadow of my name. However the text-shadow has an opacity of 50% (half-transparent) which is why it still is a bit hard to see. Hope that explanation was good?

Edit: for reference, the first screenshot provided is with the old signature, and the second screenshot is with the new. The second screenshot didn’t have to do with the green background, but rather the new signature using a text-shadow. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 15:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LuniZunie: and thank you first of all for your interest and for giving me the opportunity to respond.
I’m afraid I don’t agree with your assessment that the link is inappropriate.
The subject of the encyclopaedia entry is the video game Super Cobra, and about half of the text consists of a detailed description of its various levels. The video in question visually illustrates exactly what the article describes.
The video includes background music, but it does not drown out the original game sounds. The gameplay shown is entirely authentic and of clear interest to anyone wishing to gain a full understanding of the game.
There is no promotional intent, and the YouTube channel belongs to a private individual with no commercial interest in the number of views.
I hope this clarifies why, in my view, the link is not inappropriate but rather helps make the encyclopaedia entry more complete and informative.
I would therefore kindly ask that the external link I added be restored.
Thank you very much for your attention. L’Infarinato (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am currently in school so I’m replying with an IP address (will verify this is me when I get a chance to use my phone). First of all, the nice response is greatly appreciated =). I removed your external link because, usually, uploading a YouTube video requires the permission of the content creator and I could not see that provided. With the permission of the content creator, this may be fine; however, even with permission, we try to be cautious about adding YouTube videos since it can turn into an unintended promotional issue. WP:ELNO points us to lay on the side of avoiding them, unless there’s a really clear encyclopedic gain. 165.140.214.226 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is me – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 13:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @LuniZunie:, and thank you for taking the time to reply.

I understand your concern about copyright and potential promotional issues. However, in this specific case, the video in question shows authentic, unaltered gameplay recorded by a private user, without monetization or any claim of ownership. It contains only in-game audio and visuals, exactly matching what is described in the article’s level-by-level section.

For the sake of clarity, I am the creator of that video and the owner of the YouTube channel on which it is hosted. I therefore explicitly give permission for Wikipedia to include the link to it.

According to en:WP:ELNO (particularly point 13), external links to educational or illustrative videos may be acceptable when they clearly enhance the reader’s understanding of the topic. This video provides a direct visual counterpart to the text and therefore offers a genuine encyclopedic gain.

For these reasons, I believe its inclusion is consistent with Wikipedia’s external link policy. I would kindly ask you to reconsider the removal.

Thank you again for your attention and for the polite discussion. L’Infarinato (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the transparency, this does solve the copyright information, so I am fine with you reverting my edit and restoring the external link. However, I do request that you leave a message on the article talk page telling people it is your own video and channel; that way we can see if other Wikipedians oppose in the future.

Since I cannot currently revert the edit (without this IP address being flagged), you may revert my edit—just add a note that we had a conversation on my talk page so that you don’t also get flagged. If any editors give you trouble just send them here!

Happy editing! And once again, thank you for the kind discussion =) 165.140.214.226 (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @LuniZunie:. I’m sincerely grateful for your approval of my edit, which shows your patience and openness to intellectual dialogue.

As you requested, I’ve now left a note on the Talk page of the article clarifying that the YouTube video and channel are my own.

As for the restoration of the external link, I can wait until you’re back on your account if you prefer to restore it yourself — it might help avoid triggering the automatic edit filters. Please feel free to do it whenever you’re home or whenever it’s convenient for you; there’s absolutely no hurry on my side.

Best regards, L’Infarinato (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just got home so I will be on in a bit to revert it!

Best – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 15:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@L’Infarinato Restored =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 15:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I wish you all the best. L’Infarinato (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I received an automatic notice of a new change to my Talk page, but saw there was none when I checked. Then checked the page history, and subsequently the Desire page’s edit history, and saw you had corrected your own errant revert of my edits to that article’s page. Thank you for recognizing your own error and correcting it. It is model behavior for a new changes patroller. 2601:188:CB82:D170:C5F5:B3F7:7B2B:4B1F (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course!! And I am very sorry about the mistaken revert. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 16:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be! All is good. 2601:188:CB82:D170:C5F5:B3F7:7B2B:4B1F (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I revoke the right of Wikipedia to publish and use in any way the text I am the author of. No one has the right to republish my deleted content without my permission. Please do not do this again, or I will consider to protect my copyright by law. Majamd (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few errors, mainly because of the sheer amount of contradictory statements online, but I looked through all the sources and think I’ve managed to clear it up and extend it a bit. Thanks! Gxev (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 17:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This article comes off like it was written by the subject themselves, a minor celebrity in Western Canada.
I am attempting to remove info that has no value to the article, and have been labelled as “disruptive”. If I need to be blocked so be it, I am not intimidated by the powers many of you editors use. 2604:3D09:9284:2500:94A7:5EAD:1B6F:3A54 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been stated in your edit summaries then. You had multiple chances to tell us this. Your edits were removed because your edit summaries never explained why you deleted so much content, other than stating this person wasn’t notable enough. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 18:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not true, I said repeatedly, I was removing irrelevant content for a minor celebrity. And it was constantly reverted for being “disruptive”.

Only the first time when all was deleted, that was an error. 2604:3D09:9284:2500:94A7:5EAD:1B6F:3A54 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based of the actions of your first edit, me and other editors determined that this was not enough to explain that much deletion. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 18:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You’re getting these reverts in so quick, I can’t tell how many times I’ve edit conflicted with you in the past few minutes, just a few seconds behind. Happy Editing–IAm Chaos 21:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply