Hello, I'm FlightTime Phone. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, In Through the Out Door, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm using a source that is already in the article - the Dave Lewis book "Led Zeppelin: A Celebration". It's in the list of sources at the bottom. The author is the one who states that the album went to #1 in the countries I added. Interestingly, he does not list Canada as one of those countries but I assume that's from another source maybe? So I didn't remove it.

Hi Fred Zepelin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey! So about your edit summary on Meidiawest*Con; It's not entirely true. ALthough it may as well be, looking through your edit I only found 2 sources in that entire section you removed, and they both appear to be unreliable primary sources. So I haven't undone your edit since it makes a lot of sense. THe majority of the section was unsourced except for the very end. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I also noticed that the very end, the part that was sourced? That is also repeated in the History section, and I left it there.

Alright cool. Also, please remember to sign on talk pages with ~~~~. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !!!! Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CuriousGolden. I noticed that you recently removed content from Donavon Warren without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 14:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please see your talk page where I addressed this. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nabbing this we at Anti spam are grateful whenever UPE is nabbed. Keep up the good Job. Celestina007 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I stumbled onto that because of another editor, really - Kuru spotted his paid editing on the movie Wheels and I kind of started exploring from that point. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru, Celestina007 - I nominated the Wheels (2014 film) article for deletion because I think the evidence is overwhelming that it was created by either a paid editor or the producer himself, it's not notable as zero reliable sources have reported on it, and the latest heavy editing to it was done by the Ugochukwu75 account. So I think the article was there purely as a promotional tool for the producer/writer/director of the movie. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kuru, Celestina007, Fred Zepelin - Hello all. I received an email from Wikipedia after all of these years regarding a deletion, I had a brain injury and Wiki was just too challenging for me. But now I am back and honestly, I am excited about getting back into it. Hopefully, I can handle it. I really got discouraged last time. Thank you Fred Zepelin for your time on cleaning it up. It seems like some of the sources were out of date and deleted. Some I don't understand, but I am learning. I have referenced articles from AFI, IndieWire, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider. It also appears like there is a lot going on with this page. Really any help or mentorship would be greatly appriciated. I am going to get to work on some other pages in the meantime. Thank you for all your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Film Fanatical10069 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're even bothering. It's so painfully obvious that you're the same editor I burst out laughing when I read this. Appreciate the overdone politeness, though. I suppose that's the smarter tactic to take if you're still trying to collect your money for your paid editing gigs. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You provided sufficient behavioural evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75 to justify a checkuser. But the checkuser result was "unrelated". If you still think that the user you reported is a sockpuppet, then try comparing editing styles, ways of wording things, mistakes that they both make in their English, etc. If you can find similarities between the user you suspect and Ugochukwu75/Binaza then provide diffs showing that both the suspected user and Ugochukwu75/Binaza behave the same way. The place to put this evidence is the SPI.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I did add all that evidence in the SPI. In the comments. Is it in the wrong place? Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Just read this comment from @Celestina007:, they sum it up for me, and it's put better than I could put it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the right place.

What I was trying to say was:

• more behavioural evidence would be useful (and tried to describe what kinds I think are worth looking for).
• that if you can find more behavioural evidence, it goes in the SPI.

Do you have a diff showing Film Fanatical10069 referring to his/her sister?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Here and here. I personally think that's small evidence in the face of the mountain of evidence elsewhere. Keep in mind - there is no sister. When Ugochukwu75 was first caught socking with the Bianaza account, he didn't mention a sister. That came later, when he admitted to socking AND paid editing. And by the way, the paid editing is what embroiled me here in the first place. The newly-awakened sleeper is desperately trying to save the Wheels article, a non-notable film, the same way Ugochukwu75 was. He voted Keep in the original deletion discussion in 2017 (along with another dormant sock account, Кость Лінивець)... and ask yourself why. And why this amazing timing. And why, despite him being able to create articles with tons of publicity/promo references back in 2015 on his first day editing, he's now pretending to be new at everything. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Check these diffs out:

Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."

Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation."

Just more behavioral evidence. That only took me 5 minutes. I'm sure I'll find more. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Well done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. This is what a sockpuppet of Ugochukwu75 looks like. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVT, that's a nice catch. I think it's worth me taking a deep dive into that account's interests and perusing the histories. I said all along that the Ugochukwu75 master likely had more than just 3 accounts running. Wouldn't surprise me if it was hundreds of them. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, Ugochukwu75 is unsophisticated. This one was created the day after the original account was blocked. But sure, if you have the time to check for promotional editing in their history, by all means, go ahead. I removed stuff from Joe Carraro and one other article. --SVTCobra 14:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra, Great job there, I know how tough it is to put together a convincing SPI report thanks for the nab SVT. Thank you too Fred. Celestina007 (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate to consider here (and I'm just asking you to look at it as a possibility, because I think it's the truth) is that the same guy is running all of these accounts, and he's latched onto the Film Fanatical one, as one that is the only chance of ever recreating the Wheels and Donavon Warren articles. If he creates a new account and tries to do the same, it would be painfully obvious that it's a sockpuppet. But because at least one established editor has expressed doubt that the FF account is a sock, that's his opening. And just for old-times' sake, take a look at the FF earliest contributions. That was not a new editor in 2017 and it's not a guy who had a brain injury for 4 years either. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred Zepelin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Images which include an advertisement for the photographer watermarked on them, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred Zepelin! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Should 2 really long obituaries be included in a biography article, word-for-word?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. Just wanted to point out that the edits you reverted included an identical Philanthropy section and the removal of birth year as from older versions. In other words, User:Pp7575 was restoring work by User:Ugochukwu75 and sock User:Binaza. This could mean one of two things: 1) it is a new sock of Ugochuku or 2) Carraro has hired a new paid editor and is giving them specific instructions for what to put in the article. Cheers, SVTCobra 18:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same two things. Option #1 seems the far more likely of the two. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful what you label as vandalism. While this certainly violates MOS:ALLEGE, it certainly does not meet the definition of Vandalism. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could see how you could argue that it's a gray area - he was found guilty of that charge, so it wasn't "alleged". In this case, it was a single edit by a newly-formed account, so to me, a hit-n-run like that, when it's demonstrably false, and likely a POV violation, is pretty much vandalism. I guess next time I'll just leave the summary as is so as not to cause controversy about edit summary remarks, lord knows what could happen as a result! Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if you think that an edit is a POV pushing from an WP:SPA, then just say it's not WP:NPOV. It avoids WP:BITEy behavoir, etc. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose NPOV would be more accurate. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Ballpark is later than the one at the wiki project. More importantly, the [[baseball]] [[stadium]] linking is the worst possible way to link as it doesn't link to the specific article at all, nor does it complain with WP:SEAOFBLUE. Please stop reverting to a poorer form based on an outdated discussion. oknazevad (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is not discussing what to call MLB stadiums. Completely different topic. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify not linking major league ballparks to the ballpark article. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to. That decision was made here. In fact, one of the participants said it's fine to use ballpark later on in the body of the article, but that "stadium" should be used in the lead! Please explain why you really really want the lead sentence changed to your preferred version. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to WT:BASEBALL. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...after seeing this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dictations. Thanks for asking them that question--and don't be bashful raising that point on a board or an admin's page next time you see something like it. If you look at how those accounts operated you'll see a pattern, easily. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. That's an army of socks. I do not envy the administrative work cleaning that up. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Leonidlednev. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Harlan Crow seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. That does not belong in the lead: see the article's talk page Leonidlednev ( T | C ) 18:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should've looked at the talk page before you reverted. Are you related to the IP addresses that posted there? Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred. You invited me to leave a message on your talk page if I think you made a mistake so here goes.

If you're going to be petty and follow me around wikipedia looking for stuff to undo, please take a look at the sources first at least. There was an error on the 'crime in SF' page that I fixed - it was reporting on crime in January through June only but describing it as yearly rates, thereby undercounting by half. This is obvious if you open the source that was linked previously and the one I changed it to. Hi! (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have described yourself doing WP:OR. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some biased guy is removing the "accuracy" section from Sound of Freedom (film) 2603:6081:5C00:F109:B8D2:D353:93E5:1AFB (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred Zepelin, you are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) § Reaching a consensus on the "Accuracy" section. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fred, Thank you for contributing to the Wikipedia community. However I noted you added information not focused on the film but rather the actors and based on characters. This is not the correct place for this information but should rather be in the corresponding actors/persons pages. Otherwise information on actor/director/based on characters would be on EVERY films page they are every in.

For example in films which OJ Simpson acted there is not a section on that films page talking about how OJ Simpson was convicted in civil court as a murder. Please discuss on Sound of Freedoms talk page if you would like to talk further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeterson101 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC) I advise you to report {u|Jpeterson101} for inappropriate behavior. There is already a RFC on the page and the consensus is clear that the section was valid and applicable, but he ignored that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.167.225 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since you gave it such a BS reason? 174.216.156.175 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete other people's comments on an article's talk page (even if you disagree with them), and then delete them again when they act to restore those comments. What you are doing is vandalism, plain and simple. I am more than willing to submit your actions to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and I won't lie about what transpired either. I won't have to. 174.216.156.175 (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confused. I'm the one who restored the talk page comments that an IP editor deleted. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jim Caviezel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I would like to discuss this.

It is ironic that the reason you provided for removing my comment was that 'Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner.' That was the point of my comment. Which may have been somewhat less than civil, but the contributor I was replying to is behaving incredibly poorly.

I'm not sure why their comment remains, when it is assuming bad faith and attacking another contributor. My comment was merely pointing that out to them, so they could self-correct. Perhaps you deleted the wrong one?

Here is the pertinent section:

Removing movie critic comments because they are "uncalled for" is not really what we do here on Wikipedia. Are you new here? I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. Chillowack (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chillowack - surely you can think of better ways to engage than "Read the rules noob!" Is that all you ever contribute? 162.222.63.62 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I agree that 162.222.63.62 could have addressed their point better, but I suspect they're young- young people tend to be more colloquial. Besides, they were not wrong. Chillowack has done this more than once on this Talk page alone, rather than respond to the point the individual is making.)

Now Chillowack becomes belligerent:

You can see exactly what I've contributed, in my 15 years on Wikipedia, by looking at my Contributions. You appear to have just created your account today? Or do you have another account? Are you posting from multiple IP addresses? Are you even a legitimate Wikipedia editor? You don't sound like you're coming from a place of good faith, nor do you sound like you are aware of how Wikipedia works, or its purpose. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Chillowack (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My response:

To my understanding, a cornerstone Wikipedia policy is to presume the other contributor is acting in good faith, and to attempt to reach a consensus. Not to greet contributors' comments with snide and unhelpful responses, nor to engage in projection by accusing others of your own behavior.

162.222.63.62 up there seems to be acting very sincerely and in good faith when they reproved you for your rudeness. You not only claim to suspect bad faith on their part, but do so in the midst of an ad hominem against them. All of this in response to a rhetorical question that was basically requesting that you behave better. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could have been more polite, but that was not only unprofessional behavior, it was also rather disgusting. My comment is also much milder than the one I was responding to. Yet this vitriol remains undeleted.

Why is this?

I would expect better behavior from a Wikipedia editor of 15 years, as they claim, and I think Wikipedia should too.

2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote "I doubt anyone will be interested in checking your page- your contributions here have certainly told me all I need to know." I find it incredibly convenient that you've omitted that part of your comments in your defense of yourself. It was a personal attack, and if you registered an account, you would be warned for it at the very least, and possibly blocked. As you're an IP editor among dozens of other IP editors on that talk page, I have no way of knowing how many times you've posted. My advice, if you want to comment on contentious topics, is to register an account. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that part before you did. I didn't mention it because it was not a valid reason to delete my comment- that part had already been deleted. Though I find it interesting that you, too, are assuming bad faith.

2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I felt rather heated when I first composed my response. Go back and check the Talk History- you will see that I regretted that sentence and deleted it. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You said it. It tells us all about your attitude, and that you're not ready to comment on contentious topics. Register an account, and learn how to get along with others. Then come back, if you're actually interested in improving the project, and not just pushing your own personal point of view. That's all I have to say to you. Fred Zepelin (talk)

Wow, so you are on some kind of power trip here. I've been noticing your responses to other contributors as well.

I think I will report that Talk page, there are a number of you who are behaving in a very authoritarian and disingenuous manner. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my instincts about you. Now kindly bugger off. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As is required, I'm serving notice that I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Located under the category: Belligerent and Inappropriate Behavior from Editors. 2601:249:9301:FF80:A107:1D80:84AC:9A1B (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested unprotection of the page at [1]. I understand you were well meaning but there are good sources that should be examined, especially to respond to the fingers-in-ears people in the discussion who keep insisting that RS do not say what they clearly say about Caviezel's connecting the movie directly to QAnon conspiracy theories and using the conspiracy theories to promote the movie.

Example: "On Thursday, Caviezel told conservative podcast host Steve Bannon he had a message for Trump about the screening of "Sound of Freedom," a QAnon-linked movie scheduled to be screened at the former president's Bedminster golf club on July 19. The film suggests global elites are involved in a massive sex-traffic conspiracy... "I believe Donald Trump was selected by God Almighty, and I'm talking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit God," he said. Caviezel also talked about a QAnon theory that claims liberal elites — often in Hollywood – drink the blood of infants to obtain their adrenochrome. "That's why the devil wants to kill him, wants to hurt them," he insisted. "It's always been this way since Pharaoh and then to Herod and now but more than ever and enslaving them and doing many, many things including organ harvesting and adrenochroming. And I will say that until I'm, you know, I'm dead." " https://www.rawstory.com/actor-pushes-qanon-theory-of-infant-blood-drinking-while-promoting-film-screening-for-donald-trump/ 73.115.150.77 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't follow me around and WP:HOUND me, as you did on Operation Underground Railroad. Final warning. Red Slapper (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oooo, "final warning"!!! Scary threat, making me so scared. But seriously, if you think someone editing Sound of Freedom wouldn't naturally have a look at Operation Underground Railroad, go ahead and boomerang yourself with an admin. Please. I'm asking you to. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you've grown way, way too obsessed with this movie. Seriously take a break, you're not doing yourself any favors with these weird meltdowns. It's just a movie. 162.222.63.62 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you got blocked, Slapper. But editing my talk page from IPs isn't going to help you. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted the removal of the word "however". MOS:EDITORIAL tells us to avoid the word normally, and in this instance I agree it was editorial/argumentative. I also removed some more - which were also clumsy writing. Doug Weller talk 07:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I'm fine with the removal of "however". On a related topic, Operation Underground Railroad, where the film gets its "based on a true story cred", I added some information that ran across and a very pro-Tim-Ballard editor is insisting on removing it. Wouldn't mind if you took a look and gave your opinion on that, thanks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not doing that, sorry. I've spent too much time on this. Nor have I spent enough time to really understand the issues and don't want to. I'm trying hard to get back to editing articles involving pseudoarchaeology in the time I have left, see my talk page on that. BUT - you really have to dial it back. Calling editors liars is unacceptable, as is "mistruths". Saying they are wrong and explaining why is what you need to do. Good faith, remember? And I don't think RedSlapper was trying to smear you but defend me as I'd been advising him earlier. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: no worries, thanks anyway. I get ticked off a little when I see an army of QAnon-defending accounts rush to defend a QAnon movie by deleting all the reliable sources that point out the connections to QAnon. But that's my problem, I get it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. It's off my watchlist now. Doug Weller talk 13:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many fucking times have you restored this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sound_of_Freedom_(film)&diff=prev&oldid=1167704020 now in the Sound of Freedom (film) article now and how many times have you been reverted for it based on talk page consensus?? Please stop it. Every source says there are now mentions of this conspiracy theory in the film --FMSky (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Civility Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sound of Freedom (film). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]