User talk:46.72.192.95

July 2022
Hello, I'm BilCat. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Friskies have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello.
 * Could you please elaborate:
 * 1. how is global market availability in context of the brand wiki page was not constructive?
 * 2. or it didn't appear constructive to somebody?

The root cause for the rollback, as i interpret it, is not related to constructiveness matters. This is simply due to absence of attempts to verify / improve the provided information with newly introduced section. This situation is caused by the ethics related remark on enforced disruption of pet food habits through politically motivated market quitting of the brand. I am not going to use any tea house and other helpwhatever things you are proposing here, because i don't need help - you need it, to provide a better explanations for rolling back the articles in an abusive and obstructive manner, which probably falls to vandalism definition.

46.72.192.95 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * may not have seen your query here because you failed to ping them. I've done that now, so maybe they will have more to say. In general, additions without sources may be removed without further explanation, but an edit summary might have been helpful.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 08:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why I didn't add a No Original Research tag the first time. I just now saw these messages today when I came to add a tag for a revert by another editor. Your additions are inappropriate for Wikipedia, as we must cite reliable, published sources. I have cats that eat Friskies, and I currently cannot get it for them, so I sympathize, but Wikipedia isn't really the place for such complaints. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It may or may not stick to the article, i admit that i indeed sympathize with animals. But in the end of the day it has nothing to do with what you are making up of this edit (exciting summary provided by you is terrific). This is a brand page and this is not a complaint, but a statement of market reality, indicative enough for the market. Some first media PRs are incoming already, it is a matter of time now to get the suitable form of it for your own personal pleasure - otherwise one fails to acknowledge the real reasons of para-phrasing me in a way you do. Here, give it a taste: "i am so constructively overwhelming in the lands of wikipedia where i can preach anyone and mock all the incoming strangers, because i am the law here". Kind of sad and disappointing that i need to go down to that level you propose to make myself heard.
 * This is called an innuendo aimed at general public and against me personally, backed and sourced with made up removal reason with rollback to current removal reasoning provided by another person and for a different edit (see dates for today's wipe) and this is truly disgusting to witness and read. Thus it is exactly your behavior is inappropriate, you take too much on yourself to preach me on my "behavior" pal all of a sudden. What behavior? A collaborative contribution attempt behavior? Don't even bother to answer.
 * Today's sourced wipe is just another example, but i will try to improve with edits to attempt to please you and read that self-justification you spread around here into absurd manner, which i find quite entertaining. 46.72.192.95 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Friskies, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)