RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation/Archive79
Tryhardbutnottoomuch[edit]
This user has a history of racist, transphobic, and antivaxxer concern trolling: [1] [2] [3] [4]
IP [5] is also probably Tryhard, as they share the exact same grammatical patterns and posting topics. IP also has a pattern of concern trolling about racist and transphobic shit: [6] [7] [8] [9]
Just thought I'd bring it to the mods' attention as this user is a repeat problem. Carthage (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
WP content forking.[edit]
Is there any policy regarding doing this? I'm not talking of directly taking WP pages and making them RW pages verbatim [there is no point doing that if nothing else], more that a WP page can sometimes provide 'good bones' that if swiped, would cut down duplication of effort when constructing/improving the RW page. KarmaPolice (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is nothing policy-wise explicitly against linking to Wikipedia. Wikipedia links for Silver and Gold articles are generally frowned upon, but I don't think that's stated anywhere. There is the problem that Wikipedia is not necessarily a reliable reference (Help:References#Reference reliability), and that Wikipedia pages can change over time, unlike a static source (book or published article). Bongolian (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a copypasta of a wikipedia page (or fragment thereof) that survived on RW without being quickly deleted after it was created. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with cribbing references from Wikipedia, although proper due diligence should be practiced as always (like if the citation is a weblink, review the weblink before using it as a reference for whatever project you're doing). Carthage (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, also take a look at the citation, if possible, to confirm that it's relevant and actually confirms what you're going to write. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked to WP articles before, and on occasion looked at their refs for re-use. Thinking reuse of WP mainspace content; say you make a RW article on X and it turns out the 'factual description' of the thing [say 25% of the whole article] was copy/pasted from WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you're just copying rather than paraphrasing, it could be considered plagiarism (not allowed on RW, or WP), depending on how much you're copying. Less than a whole sentence is probably OK, but a whole sentence or more, I think would be plagiarism unless you're also the person who wrote it on WP. Bongolian (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've linked to WP articles before, and on occasion looked at their refs for re-use. Thinking reuse of WP mainspace content; say you make a RW article on X and it turns out the 'factual description' of the thing [say 25% of the whole article] was copy/pasted from WP. KarmaPolice (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, also take a look at the citation, if possible, to confirm that it's relevant and actually confirms what you're going to write. Bongolian (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I see no problem with cribbing references from Wikipedia, although proper due diligence should be practiced as always (like if the citation is a weblink, review the weblink before using it as a reference for whatever project you're doing). Carthage (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever seen a copypasta of a wikipedia page (or fragment thereof) that survived on RW without being quickly deleted after it was created. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Alleged parody or mockery socks[edit]
I left for a week but received several emails similar to what some recently blocked users @B0ar/@BooAR (alleged socks of @Boar have posted):
It took years for editors to realise and to convince the admins that our CBH account was a parody (from Nov. 2018 to Dec. 2023) and a long time to even realise Boar (until recent) was also a parody, and I intend to make it take you even longer next time. As we proved, the mods here cannot distinguish between an actual radical leftist and parody of one. We also left deliberate inaccuracies in Emily Willoughby's article, some that have not even yet been amended or removed. Its your choice whether to continue playing this game as long as you continue to smear HBD writers and intelligence researchers we will continue making and inserting the parody edits.
Any thoughts what to do with this? If a troll/parody account did create the Emily Willoughby article what is the policy on this? From what I can tell, the users taking credit for this are from the Human Diversity Foundation and/or the The Jolly Heretic (which the HDF apparently owns). I made a mistake of mentioning my email address on my page and will probably hide it from edit history. Aside from these trolls from the HDF posting stuff - evidence was compiled for the alleged sockpuppet master here. One thing I noted about the Willoughby article is nearly the whole thing seems to be based on Wikipedia edits and drama on wikis which seems out of place (compare to any other article on a hereditarian) and nonsense about "Nazi Dinosaur" art from decades ago. This points to the article being written as a parody or mockery. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've hidden my email and will not further respond to this sort of stuff in the future, however, a solution could be to a vote to delete the article. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- And the worst part is that they could be bluffing to try to make us shoot ourselves in the foot. But then again, bigots generally aren't smart enough to play psych games. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've kept articles before that were created by those trolls, but only if they were substantially rewritten (e.g. Eric Turkheimer). Boar is in all likelyhood a sock/meatpuppet of @CBH, as has been established in previous discussions. I wouldn't mind sending the article through another round of AFDs but maybe someone wants to salvage it. Plutocow (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- And the worst part is that they could be bluffing to try to make us shoot ourselves in the foot. But then again, bigots generally aren't smart enough to play psych games. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The boaring troll’s edits are all bullshit and should be ignored and consigned to the trash can without comment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page has already been gone over rather thoroughly post-Boar. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will just point out that Emily Willoughby seems to have actually been undoing CBH's troll edits and getting CBH's socks blocked on Wikipedia. This may explain why she was targeted here with a page creation by the same sockmaster. I am surprised no one looked into this before. For example, CBH wrote the following troll article on RationalWiki: Draft_talk:Whiteness (the page was deleted for trolling but its talk remains). The page described whiteness (and white people) as a "parasite". Willoughby undid a troll edit on Wikipedia by an account named "ParasiticWhiteness" which was very likely the same person who was active around the same time on both wikis. Furthermore, there is a long discussion on Wikipedia Willoughby had with an insider who knew the sockmaster. The insider admitted accounts were made simultaneously trolling both Wikipedia/RationalWiki to insert "parody" content and their targets were people associated with the ISIR. Note that Willougby is apparently an International Society for Intelligence Research board member so this further explains why she became a target.
- The page has already been gone over rather thoroughly post-Boar. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- The boaring troll’s edits are all bullshit and should be ignored and consigned to the trash can without comment. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
At the time when we were adding this material to RationalWiki in 2018-2019, the fact that it was intended as a deliberate parody was quite widely acknowledged. See the discussions here and here, among other places. Some of the really obvious parodies such as the Kathryn Paige Harden article were deleted for that reason, but more than 90% of our parody material about ISIR and the people associated with it has remained basically unaltered. In some cases, the users adding this material about intelligence researchers left deliberate clues so that those who looked carefully could know they were trolling. For example, the person who created the Richard Haier article used the username Kfotfo, which is a one-letter shift forward in the alphabet from "Jensen", in the same way that "IBM" is a one-letter shift from "HAL". The goal of this project was to demonstrate how RationalWiki would allow and promote the most paranoid, defamatory conspiracy theories as long as they supported the site's ideology. Judging by some of the reactions we received, such as this and this, we succeeded at demonstrating that.
Anti-eugenicist (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just as a reminder for anyone who may have forgotten, Jonathan Kane (the ex-boyfriend in the Nazi dinosaur foofaraw) has an account here (User:Tetrapteryx). He has edited as recently as September and did comment on both his own page and the Willoughby page. — Unsigned, by: Bongolian / talk / contribs
- I will create a vote to delete and make an argument but it will take a while. Hopefully it should be up by Friday. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- To delete what exactly? The Emily Willoughby RW page? KarmaPolice (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will create a vote to delete and make an argument but it will take a while. Hopefully it should be up by Friday. Anti-eugenicist (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
FairDinkum and Lavalizard101[edit]
@Lavalizard101 just unilaterally permabanned @FairDinkum after @BobJohnson blocked them for three weeks. For those OOTL, FairDinkum was blocked after a certain saloon bar edit, which is now deleted so only sysops can view it but basically it alleged that a certain banned user (who shall not be named in service of not derailing this thread, as we are not here to relitigate said ban) was the suspect of the United Healthcare CEO shooting using flimsy evidence and seemed to insinuate that the FBI could get involved with RW as a result. It was stupid, but given that FairDinkum was a relatively established user (and was the subject of a coop back in March 2023 in which they were blocked for three months) we might want to run it through the community. We don't need a vote if there are no objections to the permaban, but to be safe we can discuss it here. Plutocow (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Great, the Manchild DJ's back. I wonder if he ever made that infamous "list" of his? Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've looked at the offending, and agree with Lavalizard's decision. I think this is one of those things where if we can get all the mods to agree, we can leave it at that. So I ask @ApooftGnegiol, @Bongolian, @DuceMoosolini, @Flandres and @Spud of their opinion of this [we really need a 'summon Mods' ping.] KarmaPolice (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- No objection on my part. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Something like "{ { p i n g | RWStaff } }"? Might wanna modify their profiles aswell for something like that. Arcadium Trancefer (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fairdinkum called a certain banned user a murderer essentially. That behaviour is disgusting from any account esp from a relatively established user, there is no context where it is acceptable. Lavalizard101 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to throw my two cents in… I checked the archives. It's not the first time they said ridiculous things about that user in particular, let alone anyone else. (I know, I'm not a sysop, but I did see the revision in question before it got purged (though after it had already been reverted), and what the fuck.) --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, you shall be in a month or so [unless you turn out to be a complete troll, which I'm sure you're not]. I only blew the mod horn in the desire to make this perma follow something approximating 'due process', remembering previous cases where a banned user complained for the lack of one. So the current count is 3/6. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support the ban of FairDinkum. The "evidence" given in that post was quite weak, yet FairDinkum said there was a "95% chance" that they are the same person. That's a serious accusation to be based on flimsy evidence, amounting to either defamation or doxing. Bongolian (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I happen to know the accused user IRL and can confirm that the accusation is false, in case that helps you reach a verdict. (And no, I'm not helping them ban evade. I'm not an idiot.) --LeCapraGrande (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support the ban of FairDinkum. The "evidence" given in that post was quite weak, yet FairDinkum said there was a "95% chance" that they are the same person. That's a serious accusation to be based on flimsy evidence, amounting to either defamation or doxing. Bongolian (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, you shall be in a month or so [unless you turn out to be a complete troll, which I'm sure you're not]. I only blew the mod horn in the desire to make this perma follow something approximating 'due process', remembering previous cases where a banned user complained for the lack of one. So the current count is 3/6. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Just to throw my two cents in… I checked the archives. It's not the first time they said ridiculous things about that user in particular, let alone anyone else. (I know, I'm not a sysop, but I did see the revision in question before it got purged (though after it had already been reverted), and what the fuck.) --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I read over their post again and just noticed that they just had to put in a dig at me in the end, proving that they still have not let go of their grudges from the coop incident. Maybe that's the reason that they made the post, as they tried to insinuate that the people who voted to ban that user are responsible for the murder. I thought them not making a shitshow out of their coop (which was the reason why they were only banned for three weeks) was a sign of maturity, but no apparently they thought they were pulling off some 5d chess bullshit. Their fate is all but sealed, but I for one won't be shedding any tears for their loss. Shall we sysoprevoke them as well for good measure? (FairDinkum did have sysop rights until they were blocked via coop, so giving them sysoprevoke won't be extraneous.) Plutocow (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I got the exact same vibe from when I read their post. "Fighting words" doesn't even begin to cover it. "You have his blood on your hands"?! Egad. And, again, it's not the first time this fool has shown "compassion" to an idiot by putting down the rest of the site. Sysoprevoking is the least we can do. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I never thought FairDinkum would come back. The fucking twat was only banned for 3 weeks. He could easily have come back long ago. I'm also shocked almost beyond words by his ridiculous allegation. All I can say is, "What a fucking arsehole!" Yes, permaban him. Sysoprevoke him. Good riddance! Spud (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- We now have a majority of mods agreeing on permaban, so I will not put FairDinkum in Sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Four was a majority, five a super-majority. If Duce really feels we did wrong on this they can necro this issue and argue the point. But I'm gonna suspect they won't. KarmaPolice (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- We now have a majority of mods agreeing on permaban, so I will not put FairDinkum in Sysoprevoke. Bongolian (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I never thought FairDinkum would come back. The fucking twat was only banned for 3 weeks. He could easily have come back long ago. I'm also shocked almost beyond words by his ridiculous allegation. All I can say is, "What a fucking arsehole!" Yes, permaban him. Sysoprevoke him. Good riddance! Spud (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Luigifan18 is back[edit]
Under the account LeCapraGrande (talk · contribs · block · rights · rename) . I mean, look at this edit, it's exactly in Luigifan's style of being long-winded wikicopping interjecting on behalf of other users. Plus, the account uses a number of Luigifan's tics (like "Link-making" in the edit summary) and even admits to having a mysterious connection to Luigifan. Block this obvious sock? Plutocow (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to be the simplest explanation. Bongolian (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- LeCapraGrande's 6th edit was suspiciously on Pokémon, one of Luigi's fixations. Also, Luigifan18 repeatedly used the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" for undoing edits,[10] whereas LeCapraGrande has twice used the phrase "Obvious vandalism is obvious" in undoing edits.[11] Seems like LeCapraGrande is obviously Luigifan18. Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might be jumping to conclusions. Luigifan and I have talked IRL once or twice. I've lurked around and witnessed Luigifan's downfall before making my account, so I have an idea of what caused them to get cast out. As for the Pokémon page edit and "wikicopping", I saw an opportunity to improve the Pokémon page by adding a link to the subject on another site, and I later saw another user getting frustrated over having their edits reverted and thought I would offer some advice to help them out. Also, "Obvious X is obvious" isn't an original joke. Maybe we both heard it from the same place. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's obvious to me you're either him, or an impersonator. Chillpilled (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should also add that the only reason I know Luigifan IRL is that I saw him working on the site on his iPad one day and struck up a conversation with him, and he would not shut up about his love for RationalWiki and his plans to make it as awesome as possible. That was the only time I really talked with him. I only know him well enough to know that he didn't shoot Brian Thompson, which I figured was relevant to bring up in the discussion about FairDinkum last week. Sorry about any confusion I caused by alluding to him earlier. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I already knew you didn't go and do that to the CEO, even though there were a handful of odd coincidental similarities. Part of how I knew was because I already noticed you ban evading before you went and insisted you didn't do it. "Link-making" isn't exactly a common phrase. Chillpilled (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gotta say, you're making things awkward by talking to me like I'm somebody else. Yes, we chatted. We may have picked up a few of each other's mannerisms. That doesn't make any similarities anything more than coincidence. And I really don't appreciate being raked over the coals for trying to help someone who clearly hasn't been lurking as long as I have with their issues on the wiki. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You weren't being "helpful", though that's par for the course with your interjections. Yeah, some random stranger that you talked to once or twice totally started ranting about RationalWiki to you, and that totally made you want to join the site and from just one or two conversations you somehow picked up all their wiki editing mannerisms, not to mention wanting to defend their honor for some reason. You're not very good at this, I'll say that much. Plutocow (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've gotta say, you're making things awkward by talking to me like I'm somebody else. Yes, we chatted. We may have picked up a few of each other's mannerisms. That doesn't make any similarities anything more than coincidence. And I really don't appreciate being raked over the coals for trying to help someone who clearly hasn't been lurking as long as I have with their issues on the wiki. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I already knew you didn't go and do that to the CEO, even though there were a handful of odd coincidental similarities. Part of how I knew was because I already noticed you ban evading before you went and insisted you didn't do it. "Link-making" isn't exactly a common phrase. Chillpilled (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I should also add that the only reason I know Luigifan IRL is that I saw him working on the site on his iPad one day and struck up a conversation with him, and he would not shut up about his love for RationalWiki and his plans to make it as awesome as possible. That was the only time I really talked with him. I only know him well enough to know that he didn't shoot Brian Thompson, which I figured was relevant to bring up in the discussion about FairDinkum last week. Sorry about any confusion I caused by alluding to him earlier. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- "We have talked IRL a few times" is just the "it's actually my brother" (when confronted with bad behavior) of excusing sockpuppeting. That's to say, nobody buys it. I'd say block, but if you want to put it to a vote, go ahead. -- Techpriest (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I shouldn’t have said anything about knowing Luigifan IRL in hindsight, I only realized that it might make you think we're one and the same after the fact. I have no interest in "defending their honor" and said as much in the FairDinkum case. Luigifan was blocked for good reason, I saw it go down. All I was saying was that he didn't shoot the United Healthcare CEO. If I was impersonating Luigifan, I'd be going out of my way to imitate them, not doing the opposite. I would like to be able to help the wiki out, so could we please drop this mistaken identity case? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- People were clocking you on the Discord even before you made that comment, Luigi. Carthage (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Clocking me" how? I saw what Luigifan did wrong here, I've been going out of my way to not repeat those mistakes. And if you're going to assume we're the same person and talking in hypotheticals, you didn't really leave him any viable options to contact you when he felt ready to make an appeal to his case. Discord: no. E-mail: no. Talk page: no. What else is there?!? Bah, I'm just sounding more sus, and you seem to have made up your minds, eh? What am I supposed to do to convince you to let me stay? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yes, you do sound more 'sus'. First of all, because the only person who would reasonably be invested in the idea of Luigifan18 "making an appeal" and being given a way to do that, is Luigifan18.
- "Clocking me" how? I saw what Luigifan did wrong here, I've been going out of my way to not repeat those mistakes. And if you're going to assume we're the same person and talking in hypotheticals, you didn't really leave him any viable options to contact you when he felt ready to make an appeal to his case. Discord: no. E-mail: no. Talk page: no. What else is there?!? Bah, I'm just sounding more sus, and you seem to have made up your minds, eh? What am I supposed to do to convince you to let me stay? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- People were clocking you on the Discord even before you made that comment, Luigi. Carthage (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Eh, I shouldn’t have said anything about knowing Luigifan IRL in hindsight, I only realized that it might make you think we're one and the same after the fact. I have no interest in "defending their honor" and said as much in the FairDinkum case. Luigifan was blocked for good reason, I saw it go down. All I was saying was that he didn't shoot the United Healthcare CEO. If I was impersonating Luigifan, I'd be going out of my way to imitate them, not doing the opposite. I would like to be able to help the wiki out, so could we please drop this mistaken identity case? --LeCapraGrande (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's obvious to me you're either him, or an impersonator. Chillpilled (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might be jumping to conclusions. Luigifan and I have talked IRL once or twice. I've lurked around and witnessed Luigifan's downfall before making my account, so I have an idea of what caused them to get cast out. As for the Pokémon page edit and "wikicopping", I saw an opportunity to improve the Pokémon page by adding a link to the subject on another site, and I later saw another user getting frustrated over having their edits reverted and thought I would offer some advice to help them out. Also, "Obvious X is obvious" isn't an original joke. Maybe we both heard it from the same place. --LeCapraGrande (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- LeCapraGrande's 6th edit was suspiciously on Pokémon, one of Luigi's fixations. Also, Luigifan18 repeatedly used the phrase "Obvious troll is obvious" for undoing edits,[10] whereas LeCapraGrande has twice used the phrase "Obvious vandalism is obvious" in undoing edits.[11] Seems like LeCapraGrande is obviously Luigifan18. Bongolian (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Secondly, you framed this current issue and also your approach to this community as being about "going out of your way" to avoid repeating Luigifan18's mistakes. It's personal and about Luigifan18 to you. Why's that, if you hardly know him? --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Since the entire community is in consensus, no need to allow him to continue whinging so I blocked him. We can leave this open a little longer but I highly doubt this will be a controversial decision. Plutocow (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see it going any other way either. The last message from him removed what doubt remained for me. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked from page[edit]
Hi, I've been banned from editing the 4B Movement draft page for three days or so and wish to appeal this ban, please. How do I go about doing that? Thank you. --User:TheJessieKirk — Unsigned, by: TheJessieKirk / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I've taken a look at it. You were blocked from editing the page due to edit-warring. If a user reverts you, try asking them on the talk page why they did it if you don't understand. Reverting them back and clicking that button again and again on each other is called "edit-warring," and it annoys basically everyone. It's easier for you and for everyone if you guys reach an agreement on the talk page. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- The page block has been lifted, so this is a speedy archive. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 22:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I've taken a look at it. You were blocked from editing the page due to edit-warring. If a user reverts you, try asking them on the talk page why they did it if you don't understand. Reverting them back and clicking that button again and again on each other is called "edit-warring," and it annoys basically everyone. It's easier for you and for everyone if you guys reach an agreement on the talk page. 🎄Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano🎄Ask about our holiday specials! 15:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
