User talk:5.20.193.193: Difference between revisions

Hello, I’m Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Victor Salva—because it 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. Materialscientist (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how it was unconstructive? be clear? and don’t claim consensus where there is only manufactured one 5.20.193.193 (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Adakiko. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Papal infallibility—because it 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. Adakiko (talk) 11:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how was it not constructive? how randomm paragraph “refuting” previous paragraph from source that does not pass requirements for sources used in wiki is “constructive” @Adakiko? 5.20.193.193 (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t need to be “schollarly”, it needs to meet wp:reliable sources criteria. Disagree? Discuss on talk:Papal infallibility. See wp:BRD. Adakiko (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so does it meet criteria? it’s primary source from a self-described catholic writer on “protestant view”, and the quote is ad-hominem attack.

Tell me, how is one author’s opinion on other author relevant to question of papal infalibillity? 5.20.193.193 (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:YOUTUBE. You removed a YouTube citation with this Katherine Ryan edit. YouTube is fine as long as it meets wp:RS and is not wp:UGC. This video was published by ABS-CBN News and is not UGC. Adakiko (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

both citations have the exact same youtube video, im deleting one and reformating citation 5.20.193.193 (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Disputation of Paris, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:25, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PEPSI697 do not delete other user’s talk page content. Explain your reversion, my deletion was explained in summary — quote was unclear and trying to insinuate “fact…” –, yours was not.

@Bagumba Im tagging as recently active administrator, since Pepsi, in my opinion, is acting in bad faith 5.20.193.193 (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are being impolite, so I am not going to respond, fix your comment and then I will explain. Stop harassing me. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weird to accused others of being “impolite” when it’s you who wrote “rm trolling personal attacks” in edit summary when asked to explain yourself. When will you give valid reason for your reversion and your accusations of personal attacks? 5.20.193.193 (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]