User talk:FossilWave

You can edit anything according to sources. You dont need to discuss in my talk page. Everytime you remove something in Princess Haya section, atleast another person has to restore those. I am surprised that administrators hasn't said anything to you for removing references. Although after your removed edits, I or others have reverted those, thats why you didn't go through further. For reminder, I dont want any discussion with you. I am not obliged to do something I dont want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woufeq (talk • contribs) 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Woufeq I didn't mean to offended you. One reason I left that message on your talk page (which you deleted) was so that we can discuss in case you decide to revert again. You have reverted them. Let's discuss here then.
 * The sources do not support the claims theyre used to.
 * As an example, this article is used. But it is from before the case began, while the sentence it is placed at the end of is about findings after the case ended.
 * Can you show me which source I was mistaken in removing? FossilWave (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While the recent revert I made was large, the changes I was reverting to were this and the few edits after that. I made sure to include edit summaries, you can find my justifications in them. FossilWave (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't like to discuss anymore. Thanks Woufeq (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Woufeq Hi, please don't blank sections from my talk page. FossilWave (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Woufeq I did remove references, yes, but you choose to ignore why I did so. As I have multiple times mentioned now, I removed the references because they don't actually support the text they are placed after. I gave you an example in the reply above.
 * As the WP:BLP article says: "that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." which I did, and you decided to insult me for it (and now erased it from your reply).
 * You are supposed to discuss so that we don't end up edit warring and can come to a consensus on what to do. FossilWave (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Raltoid. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Raltoid (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Raltoid These are the relevant parts of the two sources used:
 * 1. "mainstream Christian religions, including Catholicism, have warned against the use of Oujia boards, claiming that they are a means of dabbling with Satanism" - which shows christian groups consider it a satanic practice
 * 2. "and both are abhorred by some religious groups as gateways to demonic possession" - which does not claim christians think so, but only 'religious groups' more broadly
 * It could be that 'some religious groups' the second source refers to doesn't include christians. I think this very clearly justifies my edit and so I've restored it. FossilWave (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Hello, I'm Crystallizedcarbon. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Coréon Dú—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. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, the edits were intentional and I'd be happy to engage with more specific objections. I will be restoring my edits till then. Do look at the state of the article before my edits, it is a mess. FossilWave (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
Nil Einne (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)