User talk:Komicie

RE:Michael Enright
I didn't insist, I only reverted your edit one time. Daily Mail is an unreliable source for Wikipedia. I couldn't corroborate what you told me here (maybe I could do it, but you have to be clear, concise and precise, I can't waste my time looking for that problem), and the link from IPSO could do the things easier. Now it is all OK. Thanks. Tajotep (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Changing edits on Michael Enright
Hello, you recently changed my edit on the Michael Enright. The information I added is well supported by the WP article. Please take the time to read the article before removing further information. werewolf (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku, I read the Washington Post article before editing your contributions to Michael's page the first time and nowhere does the WP make the false claim that Enright tired to "sneak" into the United States illegally. And that is what your paragraph suggested even if you didn't mean to suggest that. That can cause Michael serious problems. What is the point of making people think he attempted to "sneak" in the country illegally when it is not true? He attempted to enter the United States legally with his passport, and that is why he was stopped. This is why I changed the article. I hope that's okay with you. He nearly died many times fighting ISIS and certainly doesn't deserve this. Komicie (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * @Komicie, you insist on changing my edits on the Michael Enright article even though what I have written directly reflects the information in the WAPO article, so it is not I who am putting a spin on the information but rather you. The article clearly states that he himself says "he did sentry duty", so why would you change that and claim that I was putting a negative spin on anything? Please refrain from changing factual information to something more pleasing to your obvious infatuated feelings towards Enright. If you continue to do this, I will take further measures to put a stop to your unprofessional behaviour. werewolf (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Revirvlkodlaku:, the article talks about how Enright fought and risked his life. By just claiming he did sentry duty without giving him credit for fighting, you take that away from him, and it's unintentionally misleading to the Wikipedia readers. And every edit I made is true and can be found in the Washington Post article. Where in the Washington Post article does it say Enright did sentry duty? It talks about how he risked his life fighting ISIS. There's a section where he almost got killed by a building behind the Islamic State front. I think our contributions have been important to this page. By the way, I think you did an excellent job on Enright's filmography.
 * @Komicie, I see that you reverted my edit yet again, this time without any explanation. This is simply not how things are done on Wikipedia, and it is beginning to be tedious and silly. Nothing that I have written and which you undid is non-factual or unsupported, you simply don't like it because it doesn't fit your personal feelings towards Enright. This is not a mature way of editing. I am going to take this up for a third opinion. werewolf (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, @Revirvlkodlaku David, first, I was following up on you changing my edits without an explanation. You completely reverted by edits and then claimed it was a minor change, which it was not, without leaving an explanation. Since you did that first, why are you criticizing me for not leaving an explanation? I'm new to this, so I'm following your lead. Also, I'm not sure how you did it, but your changes did not show up on the Web site, but only in the the phone app. I wouldn't have even noticed your major changes if I didn't check the phone app because the Web site still had my edit on it.

You say the fact that Enright "helped liberate Raqqa" is subjective. How do you figure that? He fought and risked his life in the battle that liberated Raqqa, which objectively means he helped liberate Raqqa. This is not subjective at all. And though you may not mean it, every time you edited Enright's page, it leaves readers with the impression that he tried to "sneak" in illegally as you originally had it. You claim he was "captured" when he tried to reenter the country. I've never heard that term used before to describe someone who had his or her passport flagged when he or she tried to enter the country legally. You keep saying that your edits are factual, and should not be changed, but I find them negative and misleading, and I doubt that's your intention. For example, maybe it did say in the Mirror article that Enright did sentry duty, but it clearly states in the Washington Post article that Enright fought in combat. You read both articles, yet chose to only put he did sentry duty. Why? That misleads readers into believing he only did sentry duty. In addition, I believe the Washington Post is considered a more credible source than the Mirror. The Washington Post article was such a positive article, but your edits on Enright's page based on the Post article have been extremely negative, and they imply that he tried to sneak into the country illegally. And why do you claim that his motivation for fighting a second time was driven by his fear of being labeled a terrorist? It is clear in the Washington Post article that he went back to get information on ISIS to help him get back into the United States, and that he wanted to help free Raqqa. All my edits can be found in the Washington Post article. They are all factual. Why do you want to change them? Komicie (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While I see that you've placed a third opinion request, this discussion should be held at Talk:Michael Enright rather than a user talk page, where other editors interested in that article could see it and join in on their own. Please give that a try first. If you still can't come to agreement, feel free to place a new request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)