User talk:2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200

I can understand, I think, that this edit may seem justified to you since, recent reportage notwithstanding, Borker is not currently in prison, along with all the other people you made this edit on. But still ...

Maybe the solution is to create something like as a subcategory for Borker and those others similarly situated. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I see you reverted an edit that you admit is a valid edit. That would be an admission of vandalism. So...why do you insist that this person remain in a category he does not belong? Could it be a personal vendetta? Also a violation of Wikipedia's editors rules. Now, you seem friend to be mudding the waters with first reverting an edit you state is valid and saying (in the explanation to provide proof) provide a citation he has been released when the article has two correct citations showing he has and then reverting your vandalism. one more time would be a 3rr violation.

Now, wikipedia recently revised the rules for the category deeming all my edits are correct. If they had created a category such as you suggest there would be one. Have a blessed day and maybe you should check with your pharmacist to get that refill you have neglected.2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So: it is your claim that this category should only cover current prisoners? Because I don't see anything to justify that assertion. Please explain. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

..2600:1700:7610:41E0:F4D6:7891:6D27:C200 (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)