Talk:Vic Grimes

message: Application of official Wikipedia citation policy takes precedent over analysis of user motives (questionable or not) in applying Wikipedia citation policy. If something needs to be cited, it needs to be cited, regardless of who it is cited by. You have no right WHATSOEVER to remove citation needed templates for obscure information and antecdotes that are not cited and doing so constitutes vandalism.JB196 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good gesture on your part, as the one who assembled the information originally and thus presumably one who knows where it came from, would be to provide some of the references yourself.  IMHO this would go a ways towards showing that this is not jut more edit warring on your part. - TexasAndroid 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I count 1 initial posting of the citations and 3 reverts.  I would not consider the first a "revert", IMHO.  That said, JB, you are on the edge, and if you revert the citations again, you are over 3RR and subject to blocking again.  And with that said, I wish that, instead of all this reverting, someone would just make the effort to add some of the references.  Especially you, JB, since you originated a lot of this here in ther first place.  If you want them referenced, you should be the one who knows where you got the info from in the first place. - TexasAndroid 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Lid

message: I thin k we all know why. Guy 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: Vic Grimes real name is Thomas Mccullen not "Vic Grimes" which is his professional name. Most of the information in the article is completely wrong. This includes place of birth, name, date of birth and so on. Most of the article is written from the point of view of someone who seems to believe that professional wrestling is real. The vast majority of sources cited in the article lead to invalid links. I attempted to make basic changes when Mr. Mccullen mentioned his displeasure in a public forum at the false content of the article. 
I would strongly caution anyone looking at the article not to trust any of the contents. 184.21.142.22 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IP: It's easy enough to point this out, but why not make an account and fix these errors yourself? You didn't even provide any sources so we could try and fix them. Ed6767 talk! 02:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because based on the reaction to the very first change (Vandal/BLP), its kind of obvious that this is another shadow-protected Wikipedia article and that any edit made will be rejected for some reason or another no matter what I do. I mean bad faith was instantly assumed and I didn't even have time to get the full source reference into the article before I was tagged as a vandal and quoted BLP on an article that violates BLP. I even put a short blurb pointing in the direction what the source was to be in the comment for the change. But it didn't help. Trying to do anything on this is a waste of time. The best I can do is note in the comments the false and unsourced nature of the article and move on. 184.21.142.22 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have sources, you should be at least prepared to cite them in the talk page and be more specific. I'm just some random browsing the web (a.k.a. the most likely person to do something), so I'm the sort of person who you want to persuade. Persuade me. BTF Flotsam (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is contains false and unsourced information