User talk:Walterfgnn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hi Walterfgnn! I noticed your contributions to Kingdom of Greece and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Koualska (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Walterfgnn (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
February 2026
Hello, I'm Willthacheerleader18. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of your recent contributions you cited a link to a source that may not be reliable. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Self-published material, user-generated content, and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a list of sources that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have their own lists of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source's reliability, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me. Please point out the unreliable source so I can replace it with a reliable one, as the content I updated is correct. Walterfgnn (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- You have re-added those sources after being warned. Read through WP:Reliable sources and you will see why my initial reversion was made. Please self-revert your recent edits as they are unconstructive. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I kindly asked you to point out the source so I can do what you asked me and remove it. It will be greatly appreciated Walterfgnn (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I provided links above that you can read so that you understand which sources are reliable and which are not acceptable. That is your responsibility to learn as an editor. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- You are not my teacher. Wikipedia editors are supposed to help and not lecture each other. Walterfgnn (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly, I am not your teacher. I have given you the tools to learn, that is me helping you. It is your responsibility to learn our policies and guidelines for editing. This conversation has been continued here. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I had the page ready for publishing, it would be helpful if you did not keep reversing my edit. Useless Walterfgnn (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly, I am not your teacher. I have given you the tools to learn, that is me helping you. It is your responsibility to learn our policies and guidelines for editing. This conversation has been continued here. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- You are not my teacher. Wikipedia editors are supposed to help and not lecture each other. Walterfgnn (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I provided links above that you can read so that you understand which sources are reliable and which are not acceptable. That is your responsibility to learn as an editor. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I kindly asked you to point out the source so I can do what you asked me and remove it. It will be greatly appreciated Walterfgnn (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- You have re-added those sources after being warned. Read through WP:Reliable sources and you will see why my initial reversion was made. Please self-revert your recent edits as they are unconstructive. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Per my initial message above, your edits were not constructive because they added unreliable sources. That is why they were reverted. It does not matter is the information you added "is correct" if you do not have WP:reliable sources to back the claims. Read over the policies, and if you wish to continue this conversation further, please do so at the article talk page which I have already linked above in my last comment. Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Instead of reverting, fix them. Enough Walterfgnn (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Again, that is your responsibility, not mine. If you cannot provide adequate source material, then do not make the edits. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- The information was there from before, with no sources. Walterfgnn (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Again, that is your responsibility, not mine. If you cannot provide adequate source material, then do not make the edits. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Instead of reverting, fix them. Enough Walterfgnn (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I also i just saw that you engaged in an edit war first reverting my edits more than three times in a 24-hour period Walterfgnn (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- It seems you need to be made aware of what edit warring is not, since you've decided to make accusations regarding misuse of policy when the above conversation is entirely about your lack of willingness to educate yourself and follow said policy. Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. You were continuously adding non-reliable sources that violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is why I reverted you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Which I justified without adding sources (for the info that I added), and now you did not revert. Usually, when you revert an edit, you are supposed to know why you are reverting it and not target a specific person making the edits. The largest part of my information is still in the article, so it turns out that I was not just adding information from the top of my head, as you suggested. Lastly, you reverted the whole edit I performed numerous times despite having sources, as you did not know some information included in some sentences, and you presented it as information with no source when it is widely known. You can delete the sentences or search up the information if you don't know it, but not revert whole sections. Truly disappointing. Walterfgnn (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I am not targeting you, I am keeping the article from violating policy. Unfortunately, you violated policy over and over again even when given the resources not to. You eventually (after much reluctancy on your part) went back and adding reliable sources, which is why I left that information present. As I said, it doesn't matter if the information adding is truer than the Pope being Catholic or the sky being blue, it needs to include WP:Reliable sources or it can be immediately removed. I was fully aware of what I reverted, I read through each edit difference prior. Wikipedia policy mandates, per Wikipedia:Verifiability, that any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source, especially if it is challenged or likely to be challenged, may be removed. So yes, I can revert whole sections when they disregard policy and add unsourced content or unreliable sources. It is not my job, nor any other editor's job, to "look up" the information elsewhere to verify. That is on you as the editor who added it. That's why it gets removed. Learn the policies. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Which I justified without adding sources (for the info that I added), and now you did not revert. Usually, when you revert an edit, you are supposed to know why you are reverting it and not target a specific person making the edits. The largest part of my information is still in the article, so it turns out that I was not just adding information from the top of my head, as you suggested. Lastly, you reverted the whole edit I performed numerous times despite having sources, as you did not know some information included in some sentences, and you presented it as information with no source when it is widely known. You can delete the sentences or search up the information if you don't know it, but not revert whole sections. Truly disappointing. Walterfgnn (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- It seems you need to be made aware of what edit warring is not, since you've decided to make accusations regarding misuse of policy when the above conversation is entirely about your lack of willingness to educate yourself and follow said policy. Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. You were continuously adding non-reliable sources that violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is why I reverted you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)