| Revision as of 13:42, 28 February 2023 editFishplater (talk | contribs)324 edits →Brenda Spencer: ReplyTags: Reverted Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:12, 4 January 2025 edit undoNJZombie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers30,608 edits Reverted 1 edit by MontanaBrice (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| (127 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. ] (]) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. ] (]) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ==Carlos Correa vandal== | |||
| == Brenda Spencer == | |||
| Thanks for suggesting protecting ], which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. ] (]) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Hey NJ - sorry to bother, Help me understand how to get the right facts on this page. Brenda did not share a bed with her dad, nor were poverty sticken and the house did not have any alcohol in it. Pictures and financial records in the book and police reports kinda shot the Milwaukee down years ago. ] (]) 10:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. I know they had been hitting ] at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. ] (]) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :The book is already used as a source to say that she did live in poverty and share a mattress, and numerous other online sources seem to say the same. So you would need to find a source stating that this has at least been disputed and cite that source, not just state that pictures show otherwise. The issue isn’t a disagreement over stating that there is a dispute saying otherwise, it’s that you placed such a statement in front of an existing source already being used to state the opposite. My advice would be to find a reliable source that back up your claims before adding info regarding disputed data formation before adding it back in. | |||
| :: Well, there has been continual vandalism at ] for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. ] (]) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Also, in the future, something like this should be addressed on the article’s talk page. ] (]) 11:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::What you are saying is not true. The book is not attributed as saying that. It is not what the book says nor the attributed photos of a house with zero alcohol. She did not live in proverty and all the online sources quote the same artilce from Milwaukee. I beleive the book with atributed pages is a reliable source for facts. | |||
| ::Sorry about not knowing wherer to add these issues. ] (]) 13:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:12, 4 January 2025
You deserve this
even if you don't want it, just delete it then... :)
|
The Music Barnstar | |
| for all that good work on the Mucky Pup and other pages on which we've crossed paths... Luminifer (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC) |
Vince
Nice job adding to the "Legacy" section. The negatives were written objectively, no undue weight, and the two paragraphs didn't come off as smear pieces. Nice job. Kjscotte34 (talk) 01:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Carlos Correa vandal
Thanks for suggesting protecting List of people from Minnesota, which I have now done. When I wrote the talk page message saying "The article you have been vandalising has now been protected", I had seen only one article that had been affected, but later I realised there are more. It looks as though you probably know more about this vandal than I do, so if there are other affected articles that you can let me know about, I'll consider protecting those too. JBW (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know they had been hitting Shannon Sharpe at one point but that calmed down. However, they may resort to hitting that one again now that the others are blocked. NJZombie (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there has been continual vandalism at Shannon Sharpe for years, so I think protecting it may be a good idea anyway. I have now checked all of the editing history of all the accounts I know of, and semi-protected all of the articles. Unfortunately, sometimes the effect of doing that is just to drive the vandal to other articles, but it's still worth trying. JBW (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)