User talk:Cryptkeeperfun

Even ***CNN*** is calling it an assassination: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/charlie-kirk-shot-utah-death-09-11-25

Watch the video clip entitled: CNN analysis shows possible movements of Charlie Kirk shooter

around 8 seconds: "...the moments before and after Charlie Kirk was assassinated"

If even CNN is now using the term, it's time for these people to get off their high horses. 75.159.96.163 (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Front page of CNN: https://imgur.com/a/JBmabcl

"The ugly aftermath of Kirk's assassination" 75.159.96.163 (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/charlie-kirk-assassination-utah-political-violence-analysis 75.159.96.163 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you reverted my edit regarding Carly Simon’s year of birth. In her memoir Boys in the Trees (2015, p. 48), Simon writes: “By Christmas 1955, my ten-year-old self was mostly relieved…,” which clearly indicates she was ten in 1955 — implying a 1945 birth year. This is consistent with the Library of Congress authority record and other reliable sources. I’ve added the relevant archive.org link and explanation on the Boys in the Trees article’s talk page for reference. 137.204.150.25 (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You have now twice continued moving the file to the 'Critical response' subsection for this reason. As I mentioned, this is not a valid reason. Just because you see something on an article/some articles does not mean that the features used on those pages should be used on all other pages as well. Additionally, the file in question is already in the reception section; changing the subsection does not mean the reception section itself has changed, and I would advise you to learn the difference between the two. Lastly, I would like to point out that since the file's text discusses awards received by the actress, it makes no sense for it to appear next to a prose containing critics' reviews of the film, because awards have nothing to do with the film reviews, and in any case that paragraph does not mention awards and is not about awards. Please refrain from making this kind of edits. If you are going to do so, provide valid reasons. Thank you. ภץאคгöร 16:02, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

There is also no right or wrong section to include it, so lose the attitude and stop attacking people who don't share your viewpoint, you narcissistic little bitch. Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, don't ever bark orders at me again. Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Given your commentary on your userpage, how do you imagine that your response above is remotely acceptable? I might have warned you first if not for the obvious contradiction between your sentiment and your conduct. So now you're blocked for 24 hours for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

My response was inappropriate and unnecessary vulgar, but it was wasn’t unprovoked. Nyxaros reviled their true colors before my response and I don’t regret calling them out, only now I know don’t curse so they can’t cry when they are stood up too for their bullying antics. I will never stand down from that and always call it as I see it, only guarded. 19 years in editing Wiki and never a block, there is indeed a first time for everything. Also, let the punishment fit the crime. Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Doing it again without cussing isn't an improvement. Y0u aren't entitled to retaliate to what you imagine is a provocation. Criticism isn't an attack. 11:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ภץאคгöร 13:28, 21 March 2026 (UTC)