User talk:205.209.10.167

November 2021
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Midnight Mass (miniseries), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Midnight Mass (miniseries), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Midnight Mass (miniseries), you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In what way is this disruptive? The original source is already cited, this is just clarifying the misleading reference. To cherry-pick the term "poor understanding of the afterlife," as the original quote does, is misleading and inaccurate. No additional source was needed because the existing source illustrates this point - the article simply states that the show presents THREE views of the afterlife, and the priest disagrees with the third one. But the pull quote of "poor understanding of the afterlife" is reductive and doesn't represent the cited source, or the show.

Would it be a better edit to remove the sentence about a "poor understanding" entirely, or perhaps replace it with a "different understanding?" But no disruption was intended, just trying to correct a misleading quote and make it better align with the actual source as provided.
 * The source must explicitly support your edit, not your interpretation from reading the source. There's nothing in the source that supports your comment "apparently mistaking 'understanding' for 'agreement'". That's your personal interpretation. This isn't the first time you've adding information not supported in a source. You're on shaky ground. Don't do it again. Sundayclose (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)