User talk:NewExLionTamer

Thanks yourself I wrote Magnapop and I appreciate you taking the time to read it and add your perspective. It's an interesting piece to add, but without a proper citation, it can't go into the article itself. Thanks for commenting and please add anything that you can to Magnapop articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I knew it couldn't go in without a source, and the article says it well enough already: I just couldn't keep from blubbering. I only saw Magnapop twice but both shows were extreme fun. The article made me remember much about some good old days, so thank you very much. NewExLionTamer (talk) 05:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Chloe Vevrier. Thank you. wikipedia should not be relying on fan clubs as a source nor over-exaggerate what was given in the book source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vevrier is a topless dancer. The book is about topless dancers. Can't make it any more relevant than that. Please go do something constructive with your time. NewExLionTamer (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue with the book. The problem is that you did not maintain a neutral point of view taking from what was written in that book. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding poorly referenced content, as you did to Chloe Vevrier. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey: don't use templates to talk other people unless you're an admin or a cop. Also, stop removing text: that's vandalism. Your bullshit lawyering doesn't defend that aggressive, personality-driven editing. NewExLionTamer (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest and try again. You've been edit warring with other people to include information cited to terrible sources. In fact, there may not even be enough legitimate sources about Mrs. Vevrier to justify having an article on wikipedia. The existence of the article invites people like yourself to start populating it with unverified information. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Chloe Vevrier, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go fuck yourself with those templates, you vindictive little twerp. NewExLionTamer (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]