User talk:109.76.133.100

March 2024
Hello, I'm Otuọcha. I noticed that you recently removed content from Measure of Revenge without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Otuọcha  (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Measure of Revenge. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Otuọcha  (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Otuọcha Their edits are fine, yours are not and please don't call constructive edits vandalism. Nobody  ( talk ) 09:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Above editor (Otuọcha) failed to follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain their changes with a meaningful edit summary. Despite my edit summary making it clear that WP:UGC Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not allowed they repeatedly and without explanation restored the same disruptive content. Editing disruptively, not explaining themselves, and to top it off accusing other editors of vandalism for trying to stop them from restoring unreliable content that is clearly not allowed. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Just seeing this. While you argue of User review or aggregating sites like Rotten Tomatoes. For certain reasons may be considered in articles for expert per WP: USERGENERATED; see, "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not." Well, I didn't intend to revert since it was user opinions but my main reference was on the other source seeing the review and it's policy. However, I maintain civility. All the best.  Otuọcha   (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't intend to revert But you did revert. You know about WP:REVONLY and WP:REVEXP? Nobody  ( talk ) 09:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @1AmNobody24 I was considering reverting all and manually removing the user score until another page pop up! I admit good faith too per WP: ROLLBACK. THANKS AGAIN  Otuọcha   (talk) 09:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some tools need just reversion. However, you've got to read the warn messages since they explains the purpose of the reversion.  Otuọcha   (talk) 10:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read the WP:SIMPLE rules. Even experienced editors would do well to revise the important basics. Write a meaningful edit summary. Look at edit history. Read the diffs. Don't go around accusing people of vandalism.

Otuọcha clearly should not be allowed to use automated tools such as Twinkle until they show they will probably read before reverting. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I will also advice you be civil. When removing sources, check them not because they have established reason of being notable but how in depth it goes with the article. Really accepted that advice as I am open to all & sundry.  Otuọcha   (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was civil. I am still being more civil than you deserve after your disruptive editing, rudely accused me of vandalism, and continuing this tedious conversation on on my Talk page.
 * You are welcome to continue this discussion on your own talk page.
 * If you want to discuss the article, take it to the article talk page.
 * I'm making this comment only to acknowledge that I have read the previous comments, now please stop. -- 109.76.133.100 (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)