146.199.57.209

Tautology

With regard to your recent revert on The Boy Who Cried Wolf - a main target for opinionated edits over years - you will have to point out the editing guideline which requires an absence of the definite article in section titles. If you aren't even aware that referring to it as "the definitive article" is a misnomer, one can have little faith in your editing skills. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Glad I got your attention. Read on.

Look sunshine you clearly have interpersonal problems, I get that! But what I don't get is why you want to project your disturbed reality onto others? Don't you get it that your nightmares aren't mine or anyone else's? You're clearly someone who has real world issues that need addressing. This is evidential from your editing record and interactions where you continually do more harm than good. After our last toxic encounter, I walked away from Wikipedia for a long time. But as the Chinese proverbs states "only a dog returns to their own vomit". I know you are protected from censure by some equally unpleasant admins who always rush to your aid when some nasty IP calls you out for your behaviour. That's how it works here. The weaponising of civility has meant tireless martinets like yourself can act with impunity knowing that any rudeness on the part of the victim ends up with them blocked or banned. There is light on Wikipedia but these only chinks in the darkness and you're one of the biggest shadows! Oh look there's a compliment. Anyone who comes back day after day to wallow in this kind of toxicity is not a mindset I want to be anywhere near. Seriously. Speaking as an independent observer. You're not well and I strongly advise you speak to a mental health professional because winding people up all day is not normal. You might think so, but it isn't.146.199.57.209 (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

---