User talk:Summa Verbius

Hi

Are you finished with your attack posts on my talk page? And using capital letters no less! If this is the way you've decided to join Wikipedia, you're going to find yourself reported at WP:ANI in no time. Please try to maintain a respectful tone and stop harassing me. Yoninah (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're too adorable, Yoninah. It was not harassment to tell you stop disrespecting my edits as worthless trash because you don't like a true addition personally, as if you own the article... You think I care at all that you're a "BarnStar Editor"? EDIT WARS AND DISRESPECTFUL UNWARRANTED REVERTS are just that regardless of who is doing the rude nonsense....even arrogant bullying Admins (and Wikipedia is full of those). Wikipedia is a mixed bag of course, pluses and minuses. An d please stop whining about occasional "ALL CAPS"...as in context it's just meant for fast emphasis...not necessarily always "yelling". (Yes I know that italics or bold are options, but I use those too sometimes....) I'm sure that you do good or great work on WP. I'm not a new joiner....just this account is. I've been with Wikipedia for about 10 years. I have another account that's been around a while that is very respected and whose edits are like NEVER reverted or molested. But that's neither here nor there regarding specific cases and matters. It's a matter of principle that you have NO RIGHT to remove a true valid sourced accurate modification because you (wrongly) think it's redundant because of a LINK...that is not definite that everyone will click, nor is the matter of "Monsey" clearly defined or located at first glance in the opening. It's ulimately whatever. People such as you will do whatever, and MAJOR POLITICS on Wikipedia always plays a role...if some Admins personally like you (bias of course) they'll uphold your bullying or hogging or disrespecting and undoing, etc, and deluding themselves or acting like it's so warranted when by Wikipedia's own rules or regulations or policies, it's actually not. As I said, you're cute and bratty, in your comment to me here.....and the way you removed my section on your own Talk page. Good luck, and Shalom and Peace....many hugs. Summa Verbius (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary source moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Contemporary source, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Darren-M talk 13:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Contemporary source

Hello, Summa Verbius. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Contemporary source, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Karen (slang) are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers 20:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Karen (slang). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you propose a specific change to the article, without insulting other users, talking about irrelevant topics, or making unsourced attacks on living politicians, it's very likely that I and other editors will politely discuss your proposal. Firefangledfeathers 20:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop being such a "Karen" please? And actually maybe uh ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS AND FACTS in the section instead of suppressing them? Thanks, Kar.... The only ones "edit-warring" and "breaking rules" ARE THE REMOVERS OF SECTIONS THEY DON'T LIKE. So save your hypocritical whining and BS and warnings for them. Oh but you won't cuz you're all tribalist zombies and liars and lunatics and hypocrites....who accuse others of what you flops do a thousand times more. I put up a section. WITH VALID POINTS. Some asshole "Karen" deleted it. WITHOUT REAL WARRANT.

Instead of actually addressing or speaking to or responding to any of the points and issues (regarding bias and how LEFT-WINGERS ARE THE BIGGEST PROVEN CRY-BABIES AND TATTLE-TALE "KARENS" ON THE PLANET, and how the article makes ZERO mention of any of that....). So get lost. You have no credibility with honest or factual people. Wikipedia (when it comes to political and "science" articles) is basically a failed and dis-credited LEFT-WING BLOG...and not a neutral thorough honest objective online encyclopedia. That's been known (and proven) for years now. Regards...... Summa Verbius (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing as this account has either been compromised or you're incapable of edit collaboratively (of which there is evidence in your edit history).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]