User talk:Morganbunkley

November 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Falling in Reverse, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://knotfest.com/news/falling-in-reverse-to-release-neon-zombie-ep/ Morganbunkley (talk) 21:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf: and @Morganbunkley: That's not the problem. Maybe be sure your message/warning applies to the edit the user made instead of using the same automated message every time. That EP is sourced in the article. The problem with the edit is adding an EP to this section. That is not what the discography section is for because it is for full-length studio albums only. EPs can be found in the band's discography page. Bowling is life (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ronnie Radke. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have an opportunity to make your point and refute others' explanations on the talk-page. But given you have not, and you do not get to continue making these edits. DMacks (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks i was unaware of that and don't seem to get notifications of talkback. i just randomly go check his page for spam from haters. the person is writing their own pages on hertiage and crediting them. they appear to me to not be a reliable source to know or credit the person's history. I reviewed their page history and what they are always altering. For 20 yrs, Ronnie has stated his mixed bloodline of his Mother and Father that has been on this page, credited in his recent book, and discussed in multiple statements/interviews. most people today are mixed. Out of no where, this person wants to challenge his bloodline like Twitter bullies.

Ronnie Radke states it here

https://twitter.com/RonnieRadke/status/1629924136758779905?t=GXo-Aig7JXWsw6o_78zd9g&s=19

https://ethnicelebs.com/ronnie-radke Morgan Bunkley (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you are assuming good faith, but definitely good to bring sources to the discussion. DMacks (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks the source is from his own words. you can see the genes in his features. why would anyone think that is a lie? Morgan Bunkley (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming that he's lying. I am saying the claim to Blackfoot ancestry is self-identified. There is no proof that he is a citizen of the Blackfeet Tribe. Nor is there proof that he is descended from a citizen of the Blackfeet Tribe. Nor have you even provided any sources where he claims to be a citizen of or a descendant of the Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana. It is purely his self-identification, which fails the Indigenous WikiProject guidelines for determining Native American identity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore This rule can be applied on literally anything, and people look away from it. What is ok for one, is not followed on another. Just an example: the battle over gender. These claims of his bloodline would come from a blood test or other that is more of a private record and doesn't need posted in a news article for crazy fans to follow. Take the person's word for it, when he states it. You can see the genes in his facial features. That should be enough. Everything doesn't need backed up and dissected in a case like this. Morgan Bunkley (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing what I have previously said. The Indigenous WikiProject guidelines are clear. You cannot flout them because you don't like them. DNA tests and physical appearance are irrelevant. Read the guidelines. Neither appearance nor DNA determines tribal citizenship or descent from a tribal citizen. I have asked you to provide sources demonstrating a connection to the Blackfeet Tribe and you have not done so. I am not removing mention of his self-identification as having Blackfoot heritage. That can stay. But it cannot stay without the clarification that it is an unsubstantiated self-identification. He cannot be added to the category for "people of Blackfoot descent". However, he can be in the category for self-identified Blackfoot descent. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Different topics have different rules. That's the way it is. WP:CONSENSUS has been found for each, even if they are not consistent with each other, because different topics have different ideas and values in play. DMacks (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]