User talk:98.113.209.92

December 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Elaine Devry, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 21:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Amazon is not listed as unreliable and the primary source confirms the birth date. So where unreliability, please? --98.113.209.92 (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Hi 98.113.209.92! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of M2 Bradley several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , I have been discussing the matter by providing an explanation in 'Edit summary' every time I edited and it was you who did not respond to the merit of my arguments by just saying that you liked the matter it was before, because... you just liked it that way. Your explanations were arbitrary, WP:TENDENTIOUS, and did not adhere to WP:NPOV, which was and still is represented by number and type of links in other articles in the same category.  It was a statistical proof o neutrality.  If you want to discuss the matter, please, do use your own advice, do open a discussion, and do answer to my arguments therein and in my last 2 edits you reverted, as it is you who reverted and not me.  Please, do, as I already did initiate the discussion in my 'Edit summaries' you have not responded either as to the merit, namely where did you take the rule of the number of links from, or to WP's legality of your reverts.--98.113.209.92 (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at State of Play (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. Canada18 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * , please, do read first what the disruptive editing and content dispute are before accusing anyone of engaging in committing them, as you did on my talk page here titled "February 2023. There are strict requirements for qualifying making both a single edit does not meet.  I will report you, as an editor who does not understand Wikipedia's rules, does assume bad faith, and abuses his position by harassing innocent editors. Sincerely,--98.113.209.92 (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also when you revert of edit constructively you are required to provide explanation in Edit summary you failed to do.--98.113.209.92 (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)