User talk:PEPSI697

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Duff Hart-Davis

[edit]

You left me a note "I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Duff Hart-Davis, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable."

1) The information is not new to Wikipedia, it simply reads better. You can see that his children/wife are still alive from other entries for example.

2) I am a close relative of Duff. I am fairly clear about which of my relatives is dead or not.

3) This is a temporary address while away from home. Further communication via it my not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.93.189.32 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look at the revision and my revert from 12 August 2025 at 07:23 (UTC), the content you've added didn't really seem to make sense to me. So unfortunately, I have no intention at the moment of self-reverting as I don't see anything wrong with my revert.
For I am a close relative of Duff. I am fairly clear about which of my relatives is dead or not., it doesn't matter whether you know them or not, Wikipedia is always supported by reliable sources and all content should be verifiable. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4) Your absolute claim about support by reliable sources is trivially false in a number of ways, even if a fine target, including for this article's history.

5) I added no new content that is not already available in Wikipedia, eg the liveness of Duff's family members, which has not changed.

6) Clearly you will win this argment because you are an editor and I am not, regardless of merit, but I don't think that I've ever had a change permanently reverted here before and I have made hundreds: I'm pretty hot on accuracy and neutrality for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.93.189.32 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hey

I am really getting confused about how the interlinking and citations here work. I have added links to some of the best sites:

  • National Cancer Institute (cancer.gov) – government health site → gold standard.
  • American Cancer Society (cancer.org) – major non-profit, widely cited on Wikipedia.
  • Mayo Clinic (mayoclinic.org) – very reliable medical source.
  • Cancer Research UK (cancerresearchuk.org) – trusted UK charity, considered reliable. However I got a warning for using depreciated links, couldn't find a way to go back without having to undo all the changes I made so published it. But now I cant figure out which of the links is not acceptable. How can I check that. How to avoid that in future?

TheInklessScribe (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References for beginners should help you about this topic. I also consider seeing WP:RSP to see whether these sources are reliable, I'm pretty sure they are. If you have any more questions, you can ask me or get help at the Teahouse. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golgo 13

[edit]

Some of the content on Golgo 13 was inappropriate for reading. 173.174.6.221 (talk) 07:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the reason to me. Would you like me to restore your revisions for you? PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:19, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i would really appreciate that very much. 173.174.6.221 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Restored your revisions as requested. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork score for double infinity

[edit]

what does this need a reliable source? 101.108.91.110 (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the date from 12 August to 13 August without providing a reliable source. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that was a mistake. I meant to change the amount of scores there are on metacritic. 101.108.91.110 (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I understand your mistake. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:49, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries :) just curious did you listen to the album? 27.145.27.120 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't normally answer personal questions on a public site, but I don't really listen to this album or never have. I've found the article when patrolling Special:RecentChanges. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 08:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palace of the Popes

[edit]

Do you not think that Palais des papes of Sorgues should appear on the list? Or that Avignon should not be wikilinked? Or that Pope Palace should appear as a see also? -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've written it like an article, which is unacceptable. We don't write disambiguation pages like articles. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the state of the page after reversion? Palace of the Popes is almost the same after reversion. Is what I changed what you object to, or the content already on the page before I edited it? -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've calmed down a bit and let out my stress, I've restored the revision for you. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 07:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protege vs. protégé

[edit]

What the hell is wrong with you? How arcane can you get, asking for a citation for a spelling correction?

Consider the following: 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protege
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/protégé

Admittedly, I didn't replace "e" with "é" in enough places. I've gone back and made the spelling change, again, and linked it to the wiktionary.

12.75.128.8 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for reporting that mistake. I was annoyed and stressed at the time of reverting your edit, I probably shouldn't have patrolled Recent Changes at the time. I've now calmed down. Would you like me to restore your revision for you? PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 08:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've only just read this conversation, after making an edit on Troilus and Cressida. As Wiktionary attests Protege (no accents) in English as an accepted usage, I applied MOS:RETAIN and rolled back. AntientNestor (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasabi article

[edit]

Hello, most things us westerners think of as "wasabi" is actually horseradish, and I suspect that includes a number of the pictures in the article which state without verification that it is a picture of actual wasabi. There are other references too such as to toothpaste-tube like tubes of 'wasabi' which I've only ever seen in existence as horseradish, as per the ingredients labels for those items. I recently made an edit involving a tin of "Wasabi coated peas". I checked a tin that I had in the cupboard and the relevant ingredient is listed as "Horseradish (Wasabi)" which means it is actually horseradish. I admit that I did not cite a reference although I was strictly factual in my edit by saying what the ingredient was listed as Horseradish (Wasabi). The actual ingredient can be verified on-line for example at https://www.woolworths.com.au/shop/productdetails/803910?srsltid=AfmBOorZrJQBVjaf1Ilq1xEaXFecKlzO8FIhNEYTa9uoCDDcOlj1Uiy1Ey8 (then clicking on ingredients). I haven't updated the article with any reference. 14.200.180.192 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the source to me, I appreciate it. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 10:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Animated September Edits

[edit]

Hello, I was the one that had recently edited the page on Transformers: Animated. I will try to use the work cited within the fan wiki, NOT the fan wiki itself. To make it easier for myself, could I just cite page numbers from confirmed sourcebooks for the series? However, in the meantime, could you have tagged my edits with "citation needed?" Or, could you rollback even further, past the edits (from earlier this year) with the confusing, grammatical errors? I prefer the latter option; those edits, from earlier this year, are an eyesore on that page. My edits were mostly trying to build off of their incomprehensible ones; but if mine are removed for not citing sources, I think their edits should be removed for the same reason. 2600:6C46:6100:2540:19E1:93E3:93E2:6AC1 (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I've reverted your edits was because you've majorly changed the casts or whatever it was to different names without a reliable source. If they were actually correct, I'm happy to restore your revisions for you. However, I unfortunately can't revert revisions from earlier this year as some good faith edits were made within this time. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 08:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I should be able to cite the series' published sourcebooks as a trusted source, with no problem, correct? I plan to chiefly use the first, two sourcebooks, as well as a third, published sourcebook that is just a compilation of the first two, with added characters.
Since there are numerous characters listed, many of which have their own, individual page in the sourcebooks, I am not sure if I should go about adding a subsection containing all of the footnotes for the specific page number for each character and then tag those footnotes to their appropriate sourcebook, or if I should just use fewer footnotes and cite which sourcebook each character is first introduced in. 2600:6C46:6100:2540:8934:357E:3367:62B9 (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Punisher

[edit]

Pepsi.

You left a note on an edit i made on The Punisher 2005 video game, stating ' I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Punisher, but you didn't provide a reliable source.' This came about because i edited the article to change Lt. Von Rictofen's voice actor from Julie Nathanson (Who was not only the incorrect actress, but was not in the game period) to Nika Futterman (the correct voice actress.)

I have watched a playthrough of the game through the credits, and am a fan of Ms. Futterman's work. I am fully aware of what her voice, even with alterations sounds like. and it is nothing like Julie Nathanson.

Here is the casting on IMDB to prove my point: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424369/characters/nm0296546

Please revert my edit as soon as possible.

Kindest regards, Anonymous. 71.105.140.240 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that I've made a mistake here, the first revision you've changed was under the section "Plot", plots don't actually need sources. I'll go and self-revert right now, but will do it manually due to other revisions made by you. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 03:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done: Just manually self reverted and restored your reverted revision. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 04:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:99.68.150.159

[edit]

I had to remove Operation Iraqi freedom pages, because I noticed that the Gulf War order of battle: United States Navy page covers the ships participating in Operation Southern Watch, later Operation Iraqi Freedom. 99.68.150.159 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the reason to me. However, the revert I made and warning I gave you was from 7 August 2025, which was nearly 2 months ago. I also noticed your disruptive editing from August 2025 and you were temporarily blocked. Is this a Shared IP address or did you do it? Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬) (📝) 06:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]