User talk:68.133.1.10

February 2024
Hello, I'm Samf4u. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Chuggaaconroy—because it 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. Samf4u (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Samf4u: this edit came up on my watchlist, but (judging from the edit summary) it seemed like it was an edit that removed material due to sourcing concerns (& I'm guessing maybe per WP:BLPREMOVE). It therefore doesn't seem like it should have been reverted with the standard Huggle vandalism-rollback summary, although I apologise if I'm missing anything (& please let me know if I am). All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 18:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So Popculturizim is a credible source? 68.133.1.10 (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Concerning my edit to Chuggaaconroy on Feb 17. I felt the incident was notable with a verifiable reference. I since have added another reference and re-added the text. Thanks to you both and Happy Edting! Samf4u (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, and I apologize for any disruption.
 * Regarding this issue, I respectfully disagree that these sources are "verifiable references", but I am also not privy of the criteria Wikipedia uses for this. Can you shed some light on this?
 * Also, have you read either article that is referenced? While I am of the belief this event is notable and should be mentioned in the article to some extent, both articles are poorly written and do not explain the situation coherently. I take particular issue with the mention of the 2012 tweet from Chuggaa, which has a very weak connection to the events that transpired over the past few months. Wouldn't it be better if there was a more reputable and credible source? Certainly, Wikipedia has a higher editorial standard than this, but if not, so be it. Thanks, 68.133.1.10 (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, the article was only on my watchlist because I came across it while doing counter-vandalism editing at one point recently (that is to say, I'm not deeply familiar with the subject). Also, FYI, comments regarding the article itself might be best at Talk:Chuggaaconroy, as more editors will be able to see & respond to your comments there :)
 * All the best, &zwj;—&zwj;a smart kitten[ meow] 03:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @A smart kitten Thanks for your input. It looks like the passage was removed by another user due to the unencyclopedic sourcing. If more reputable sources cover this story, then I am certainly willing to use the proper communication channels to discuss this with other users and write up a passage that provides an accurate, unbiased view of the events. 68.133.1.10 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)