User talk:Wiiformii

Lionel Tertis

For heaven's sake. I added information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:AE82:5D01:24F5:161A:EC27:14D3 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for all the help with the vandalism on that article! You're awesome. Squeeyote (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yw! Wiiformii (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Why did you reverse all of my recent edits for the 2024 NBA draft?

I provide multiple sources confirming that the early entry NBA draft for 2024 was 100% official now, to the point where I even referenced a Twitter link (I refuse to call the place X) directly from the NBA's PR link (which is as close to official for the NBA as you can get without directly going to the NBA itself) for good measure. Both links listed the names that were officially left on the draft as of today, as well as names that decided to drop out on the international players deadline. Please revert your edit back to the most recent one made involving the early entrants list in question. Thank you very much for your time. – 71.223.150.139 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like it was accidental, thank you for letting me know. I will fix the Wikipedia:Bare URLs Wiiformii (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Gateway Church

Please use the talk page to discuss your edits. Thanks. WestRiding24 (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Unverifiable Information

Please reinstate my removal of unverifiable information in the Eilabun article. There is absolutely no confirmation of the cited book nor the bogus "ancient site" of "Ailabu." It's embarrassing. Cas623 (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What is embarrassing? I do not have access to the citation so I can not say you're wrong or right, and you may as well be as content on Wikipedia is always changing Wiiformii (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It is embarrassing that a theory is being presented as if it were a fact. You don't have access to the citation because it does not exist. Remove the sentence. Cas623 (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What is embarrassing?? I solely reverted it because I saw deletion without any reason, I have no relations to the Eilabun article and do not know what it is, if you think it is not a proper citation it may be removed, and in the page history you can always revert Wiiformii (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I've just given you the reason. I will go in again and remove the sentence. Cas623 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

That's okay, I don't have any interest in articles about cities in Israel Wiiformii (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Reposting: After extensive research, I could not locate any mention of an "ancient Hebrew site" called "Ailabu" including in 19th-century gazettes and topographies. The book listed by Immanuel or Emmanuel Hareuveni is also completely untraceable. This is ahistorical and misleading. Please remove it now. Cas623 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

RE: Chad Brown Personal Life edit

Hi Wiiformii, Thank you for such a kind response. I am very new to this, so again thank you for helping me navigate this process. I have been watching this case since the beginning. I am a fan of Thoroughbred racing. The Daily Racing Form did not report on this correctly. This is not unusual for this industry. The industry reporters as a whole turn on trainers. I am not sure why, but they do. The Daily Racing Form is an industry paper and it is very bias. Chad Brown is a very successful horse trainer. As I put in the last message the prosecutor stated that there were difficulties with the witnesses statement. If you watch the video of Chad in court, the first video, the judge basically calls him a liar before any testimony was given. The prosecutor spent months dong discovery, this is all documented. Nobody knows what happened that night, but we do know that the prosecutor couldn't convict. Again it was NOT proven that he pushed the girl down the stairs and or chocked her. I don't think it is fair to ruin someones reputation on a statement that is proven to be at the very least to be inaccurate. Chad Brown claims she broke into his house. I don't know what happened, no one does except the people who were there. Chad Brown could be completely innocent or partially guilt. We just don't know. I think to keep the integrity of Wikipedia everyone should air on the side of caution. Just from your note to me you seem like a kind and fair person. The judge, Francine Vero, is self proclaimed to be a specialist in domestic violence. I have never heard of a judge specializing in anything. If you have any doubt. Please review the videos. She was very bias, at the end she let him plea to what is basically a traffic ticket. She didn't give him a fine, or do any community service or make him attend anger management classes. All standard for someone who is guilty. It's truly terrible to think that a girl can go to the police and accuse someone, ruin their reputation and this misinformation follows the person forever. Again I am a female, it upsets me when a women comes forth and discredits herself. If Chad Brown is the type of person that she describes, he will do it again and then the world will know. But if he isn't and it was all a set up... all a lie, his reputation shouldn't be ruined. I hope you agree. I don't believe any of it should be up. The prosecutor said there was difficulties with her statement. The case should have been dismissed. Sorry I have written you a novel. I think it is Wikipedia's job to protect people if there is any doubt. Will you agree to take this down? Thank you Annointed777 Annointed777 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for helping Wikipedia by curbing vandalism. You deserve a barnstar :D Apollogetticax (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Tysm!! Wiiformii (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I noticed a lot of IP socks are trying to attack you, but the edit filter is surprisingly working. Anyways, have this kitten!

ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! people will always be upset at something though lol! Wiiformii (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Just curious

You reverted Shadia Abu Ghazaleh back to terrorist in the first sentence. What’s the source?I presume you. Know about WP:Terrorist. This is a NOT a criticism, it’s just that I noticed that the word was added by an editor as their 503rd edit and I had thought it would be removed. But I haven’t had time to see if is properly sourced but it doesn’t seem to be. I’m not getting involved as an editor. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It might've been an accidental revert as many people were messing with the article before ECP, seems like there was some Wikipedia:Gaming the system also involved as the editor started editing very contentious topics right when they got 500 edits. I don't think there were any citations either so terrorist would be a contentious label for her, but another editor with more knowledge may know better about the topic than me. Wiiformii (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It seems like this user also violated arbitration (which all have arbitration reminders on the ) talk pages about the Arab-Israeli conflict before the user became extended confirmed Wiiformii (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Tired right now and watching tv with wife so I won’t take action now. Might be wise to revert it though, their edit summaries look like OR in any case. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Wiiformii (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

george barr

Why did you remove perfectly good data on george barr's career? It was valid. Leaving a note to me to improve the citations would have been more appropriate, than ripping out the work wholesale then then leaving a note to improve the citations. 67.225.17.82 (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

User warning usage

Hello! I noticed your recent application of a level 4im template to 2605:B100:B3B:1A08:E58E:3961:D09C:75FE (talk), and I thank you for your help in fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. However, it seems that you used a level 4im template as the level after level 4 (correct me if I'm wrong). Level 4im templates are for giving a user a level 4 warning as their first warning (the im seems to stand for immediate). Just thought you might need to know. Happy vandalism fighting! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 11:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I might've accidentally warned them as it's become semi-automatic in my mind. Wiiformii (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. You're welcome! – Daℤyzzos (✉️ • 📤) 21:56, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I literally explained the content I removed in my summary. (Voice of Reason party)

Please do not instantly revert my changes to an article that is being completely trashed by ideologues. Citing blogs and biased news sites does not override the official positions stated by the Voice of Reason party. Thank you. 2A02:587:5468:2800:6063:A88E:4295:5102 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please explain how the sources are biased? Use the talk page to find consensus also as it may seem like vandalism. Wiiformii (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue. I did attempt at starting a discussion on sources on the article's talk page but none of the people who are reverting my changes are using it. It's legitimately the definition of vandalism. So please, until someone actually explains the changes through the talk page, don't insta revert my edits. As to why the sources are biased, I can go one by one on most of them, but the majority of them are either blogs with no primary sources in them, or just opinion pieces of journalists, which do not define a party's political position, the party itself does. I think that answers it pretty clearly. 2A02:587:5468:2800:6063:A88E:4295:5102 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Wiiformii, I believe you have been deceived or manipulated here. Could you please revert the edit? The IP address involved has been consistently lying in the edit summaries, pushing a narrative aligned with the party or displaying right-wing views that contradict their supposed stance. They removed five sources supporting the claim that the party is far-right, replacing them with a single source stating it is merely right-wing. The sources they removed are some of the most reputable newspapers in Greece, all of which are conservative. Proto Thema [1] and Kathimerini [2] have he largest circulations, while LIFO and Press Project are both respected media outlets in the country. Same applies for To Vima which backs the claim as well.The most egregious removal is an academic peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. This demonstrates that the anonymous user has been repeatedly lying about the sources and the clearly substantiated discussion. Can you please restore the article to its previous state and ensure that any further discussions and sources are brought to the talk page? This behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. 87.203.204.21 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The user replying above has repeatedly vandalized the article, giving no explanation or using the talk page before making edits. I'd suggest keeping the page protected for a certain period until the disruptive edits stop. Also the so called "egregious removal" was an article that again links back to the same opinionated pieces I described before. I doubt "Liberal.gr" is a conservative site. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep spewing lies to support your obvious bias and likely connection to the party. First, you called those articles "liberal websites," which was debunked with sources. Now you're claiming they're opinion pieces, another blatant lie. Care to point out exactly which parts are op-eds and back up your claims? Michalis1994 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you please argue somewhere else? I have no opinion on a Greek party, i'm Brazilian. Wiiformii (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)