Talk:Brendon Villegas

This article's factual accuracy is disputed

 * This article has been extensively edited by the subject, and other persons with a conflict of interest.
 * This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Superfluous references are constantly being added to this article. For example, anyone can write on a facebook page that they are 97 years old. Now if the person is actually 17 years old, but the facebook pages reads that they are 97, then that would be a superfluous references with no true cite value.
 * This article is written from a fan's point of view, or an extremely positive point of view rather than a neutral point of view.
 * This article needs to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it simply neutral in tone.
 * More than one person or editor has a very close connection with its subject.
 * The neutrality of this article is disputed.


 * This is quoted from a talk page on a different article, but it may be something to ponder upon.

"When trying to justify the addition of criticism, please don't emphasize that it's factual and sourced. That is not the issue. Being factual and sourced is NEVER enough to justify adding anything to an article. Just stick to trying to convince us that's it due. HiLo48 (talk)"

Let's all just discuss.
 * Any information being added to an article may be due, but the article needs to conform with wikipedia's high standard of quality while remaining neutral in tone.

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

consensus?
Can we not have a discussion, and at least even attempt to come to a consensus regarding the issues stated above by me referring to this article? There certainly has been no consensus reached, so just editing or changing the article anyway you see fit is inappropriate at this time. Appropriate tags re-instated until some sort of consensus is reached-thank you.

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again with no regard for attempting to attain a consensus user HW has struck again. There was not tag bombing only re-instatement of tags until a consensus is reached.

"09:37, 4 March 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-235)‎ . . Brendon Villegas ‎ (rv tag bombing; Undid revision 598114840 by Carriearchdale (talk))"

tsk tsk tsk...

ciao!

Carriearchdale (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, you don't get to vandalize,deface, deform, or remove well-sourced content from BLPs on whim, and insist that your edits are supported by consensus. Your vendetta against these two minor reality tv figures is not going to be furthered on Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again you are mistating what has happened here. I did not vandalize, deface, deform, or remove any well-sourced content from anything. I have however been the victim of multiple personal attacks by you Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You only stopped the personal attacks against me after you were reported. So, you don't GET to continue to personally attack me anymore without any consequences. Are you actually interested in discussing these issues here while being civil and without any personal attacks?

I really hope your day has been quite pleasant!

ciao!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected
Following the request at EW I have full protected this page for a week to stop any edit warring and allow for further discussion and a consensus to develop. If there is any prospect of resolving this sooner please let me know so I can undo the prot. Mercy buckets. Spartaz Humbug! 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Family2016Brendon (cropped).jpg