User talk:Renamed user WhBbKFyIKi

Camilla Hall

Please see my reply at the article's talk page regarding notability. Also, when you post on a talk page, you should sign your post by adding four tildes, like ~~~~ If someone is part of a notable event event, and you don't think they should have a standalone article, their article could be merged to the main article about the event. Thanks.Edison (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm David Gerard. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Boyfriend Loophole, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Deprecated means "do not use". At this point, you're being deliberately disruptive. If you really want to argue that the Daily Callier's a good source, I suggest WP:RSN first. David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 13:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend loophole

May I ask why you reverted all your changes to Boyfriend loophole? Although there seems to have been a dispute regarding a small part of your changes, most of your changes weren't contested, so I'm wondering why you reverted even the parts that weren't contested. Moreover the changes that were undisputed and you reverted seem to me to have provided a better explanation of the boyfriend loophole than the reverted version.Dash77 (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to David Gerard and JzG I am a disruptive user who uses unreliable sources. Take it up with them. I'm not going to be a party to their partisan agenda. I'm not interested in the quality of a platform which bans right-wing sources and greenlights left-wing sources, then has the audacity to pretend like they're invested in truth and impartiality. It's insulting. I reverted it to the version they prefer, one without my input. - Kphawkins (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kphawkins, just so you know, deleting all your edits to an article because you can't have every single word left intact is called ownership and the usual result is a block. I'd really rather you didn't go down that route. I understand that you may know be familiar with, or subscribe to, our interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source, but it has been subject to substantial debate involving large numbers of editors. Please familiarise yourself with the list of frequently discussed sources. Guy (help!) 12:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 16:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed at username change request

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]