User talk:TheKlowster

Welcome!

Hi TheKlowster, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Tacyarg (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Madame Tussauds, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use your sandbox instead. Thank you. Frost 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

Hello, I'm Frost. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Madame Tussauds—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Frost 14:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand a good meme, and appreciate YouTube lore and culture, which adds insightfully and productively to the typical Wikipedia viewer’s overall experience, then arguably it IS constructive. Please leave as it is. TheKlowster (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's wholly unsourced and misplaced there. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wroetoshaw, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a bit snowflakeish. I simply corrected the record. Wroetoshaw’s first name is Harold and this is well-known in YT circles. Harry is a shortened version of the given name Harold as well as Henry.

How about you at least try to find the source for it before recklessly deleting my truthful contribution?? TheKlowster (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, according to the Wiki article: Guernsey, Guernésiais is a verified demonym to refer to a Guernsey inhabitant, as well as a language with the exact same name.

Please do your research before reverting someone’s edit in the future. TheKlowster (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:TheKlowster. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

The Sidemen book quotes him as "Harry".

Please see how to find reliable sources to use within articles. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not attacking anyone. However I am being attacked because his true first name which is widely known lacks a supposedly “reliable source”. I listed two sources and you rejected them both. I feel like I’m being attacked! TheKlowster (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sidemen book was written in 2016, when the Sidemen were more keen on protecting their personal information. Since then, they have publicly disclosed some of their personal information, including W2S disclosing Harold as his given name.

Please desist from attacking my edit of his true first name, which is widely known. Thank you TheKlowster (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Hipal (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a contentious topic??

Please explain plainly why the most recent source (The Famous People) I listed is not a “reliable source”, and why a “reliable source” is more important than factual information in the case of a minor edit of a page where everything else is reliably sourced!

Please see logical reason over contention here, in this case! TheKlowster (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand about the notice above?

Thefamouspeople.com has been repeatedly identified as an unreliable source at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Please do not add it again. --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s 1 word for crying out loud!! Wrotetoshaw’s legal given name!

What is more important?? The fact being displayed or the quality of the source of where the information of 1 word has come from.

Larry Sanger is right. Wikipedia is lost to users whose editorial priorities are utterly in the wrong place. 20 different sources can tell you Harold is his first name which tells you I’m right here, and throwing them all out because they don’t meet a standard for the information of 1 word is utterly daft.

If all the other page information comes from verified sources, 1 word surely doesn’t matter so much. This needs to be addressed. If it isn’t I’ll change it back. TheKlowster (talk) 02:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]