User talk:Quenreerer

Please do not remove again. Please take any issue you may have to Thumberg's "talk" page where, if memory serves me correctly, this was already discussed and consensus was reached--but don't hold to that. Nevertheless, her talk page for issues. I Replaced honorific_suffix. "This is an Honorary Fellowship, first awarded in 1888 (in 133 years only 82 have been bestowed) and is awarded in recognition of services to the Society and to the wider discipline of geography. Honorary Fellows may use the post-nominal designation FRSGS after their names.^[1]" See Royal Scottish Geographical Society -- Honorary Fellows

If the Nick Bosa tweets controversy happened today, would you add an entire section devoted to it in his article? Both of these things are receiving similar coverage in the media, and neither deserve their own section. Additionally, you keep adding back spelling and grammar issues and well as excess URL code, which is now bordering on disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

false equivalency. nich bosa didn't threathen anyone. or post racist tweets. he like an instagram post, not even a tweet, that had hastags that could be viewed as racist or homophobic, or just made out to be because of the political climate. by contrast, JW posted threats and racial slurs to the point that his twitter got suspended. his conduct is similar to riley cooper, than to to nick bosa. and riley has a section devoted to the event. i'm not the one disrupting here. i added properly sourced content within the parameters of wiki. racims controversy and threats do not belong on the season section like football stats. Quenreerer (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The posts Bosa liked included the N-word as a hashtag so your stance that these "could be viewed" as racist is incorrect. You've now reverted the edits for a third time, close to violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia. You restored spelling and grammar issues, excess URL HTML, and now deleted sourced information about his release from the Browns. This is disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

grammar issues, html, etc have been used as excuses to remove sourced content. anything that was source and removed was a mistake and you can re add them. but don't use nonsense to try to justify erasing content, just because you don't like it. it's coming off as very POV. Quenreerer (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit just for the grammar, spelling, and HTML issues and you still reverted all of my edits entirely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

you made multiple edits. if it were only the grammar and html i wouldn't have touched it, but youd didn't stop there. it's obvious you want to use it as a distraction to make your page altering edits.

removed exces HTML, fixing grammar. Quenreerer (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 92nd Infantry Division (United States) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRESERVE. Many of these records are easily verifiable with a quick Google search, and none of the information is contentious, so it would be more beneficial to look for sources yourself or add maintenance templates to those sections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

And again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

YES! Absolutely! Those edits were added 20 months ago. That's almost 2 years without reference. It's time to remove them. Putting a maintenance tag is just delaying what no one will do and that's leaving up un sourced sections.Quenreerer (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRESERVE for guidance on removing content from articles. If you see unreferenced information in an article without maintenance tags, it is better to add one than remove the content completely (or, better yet, spend 5 minutes finding sources yourself). This information is not contentious and easily verifiable, so removing it completely without trying to improve it is lazy and detrimental. I will note, however, that this edit to Josh Allen (quarterback) was justified, as a quick Google search showed he was at least the fourth QB to accomplish this. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

there's also an issue of CANTFIX. some of those records are so specific it's almost impossible to find sources. Quenreerer (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that some of the Murray records might be more difficult to find references for, but removing them all wholesale is still not the correct approach. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments like this demonstrate that you need to back away from a subject or editor or both. Tiderolls 17:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Special Forces of Ukraine into Spetsnaz. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss his height at Talk:Kobe Bryant. This is not a good time to edit war over something like this. Zagalejo^^^ 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nina Dobrev shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Learn the difference between citizenship and ethnicity first. Nina Dobrev isn't only a Bulgarian by ethnicity, she's a citizen of Bulgaria. MOS:ETHNICITY doesn't cover citizenship, therefore can't be used as an excuse to erase her Bulgarian citizenship from lead.Quenreerer (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at White supremacy, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I wont touch the page again. to many of you neutral agenda driven racists hanging around to dogpile and claim harassment. Racism will never win, no matter how much you racist try to weasel it into our lives. Quenreerer (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)