User talk:Oblivy

Merry Christmas

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello Oblivy: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

About My Recent Edits

Hey Oblivy, I appreciate you reaching out about my edits about the LBTBP. I looked at the sources and noticed that the Philadelphia Inquirer noted the patrol as “one of the largest and oldest beach patrols in America.” I figured that might establish some notability. I’d love to work with you to improve and expand on the article. Thanks, and have a great day! Wranlo (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Western Provident Association moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Western Provident Association. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because for use by author in other articles, as discussed. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory

Considering Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies, I would caution against edit warring to restore unreliable sources to Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory. You should also know better than to add promotional wording based on such a source. Wikipedia is not a platform for PR or advocacy, and phrases such as "embrace digital assets" fail WP:TONE and WP:NPOV. If you wish to defend the reliability of that source, the article's talk page would be the place to do it. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What I did was to add sources to supplement the one you challenged, but to leave that challenged source in as I believe a note to clients from a highly reputable law firm is a perfectly valid source. I am aware that you have in the past attempted to gain consensus for the position on law firm publications being unreliable sources, but I'm certainly not aware of any consensus supporting your position.

I would also encourage you to be careful about throwing around words like "edit warring" and "you should also know better". I made one revert with the edit comment that I would be making further edits shortly after that, which I did. Did that violate 1RR? And I don't agree the wording is promotional, but if you think it could be seen that way nothing prevents you from editing it. Oblivy (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)