But I did not add the false sales. :( Check again. All my editions had sources, I think it's wrong inflate. Sorry for something. Ross Lynch Lovers ( msg) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Update: My last edition with sources ( here), the vandalism ( here). Sorry. Ross Lynch Lovers ( msg) 13:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I swear, MrMclovin's edit summaries on Cr1TiKaL are going down in Wikipedia history. There are probably angrier edit summaries out there, but that's the angriest I've seen so far. I've never internally laughed so hard in my life. L33tm4n ( talk) 18:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at AnEsonGib shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DarkerthanTar ( talk) 10:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ DarkerthanTar: Annnnnd you're blocked. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 11:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
There is an RfC ongoing about a topic which you have previously been involved in here. JimKaatFan ( talk) 15:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi - I'm the editor who wrote most of the Hoodwinked article and brought it to FA status a little over eight years ago. The less than $8 million budget was accepted during the review process that the article went through all those years ago, but I realize that sourcing could have been improved, so I did a little digging. A number of quality publications, such as Entertainment Weekly, The A.V. Club, and Tulsa World have given the film's budget as around $15 million, but during a 2009 interview, the film's director, Cory Edwards, stated that the actual budget was under $8 million. This article in The Sydney Morning Herald also gives $8 million as the budget. According to this article from Animation World Network, the "official company line" was that the film's budget was $15 million, but the actual budget was kept "under the radar", which probably explains why there are differing figures. I've expanded the production section to explain all of this and have updated the sourcing. -- Jpcase ( talk) 12:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello ChicagoWikiEditor, just to invite you to leave a comment/vote for the second part of the RfC: Talk:Nicki Minaj#New proposed lead, as I want more experienced users to comment on an article with severe wp:own issues. Regards. Cornerstonepicker ( talk) 02:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Some of your recent
genre changes have conflicted with our
neutral point of view and/or
verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide
reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek
consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you.
Pyrrho the Skeptic (
talk) 15:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Pyrrho the Skeptic: I have literally no idea what you're talking about and I don't think you know what you're talking about either. First of all, I am not genre warring or even making genre orientated edits. I simply removed an expired external link from the Cardi B article (what you're referring too). You should read the edit summaries next time, takes like three seconds. If you want Cardi B "rapper and actress" to be withstanding in the lead, you need to provide a reliable source for the latter before changing it back. Welcome to Wikipedia ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 16:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Nearly all of your recent edits are removing content from genre-specific articles. These types of edits should be dicussed on the Talk Page first. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 16:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ Pyrrho the Skeptic: No, they shouldn't and they won't be. I don't need to open a discussion to remove a broken external link or extracurricular career roles from lead of any article. You're more than welcome to open an RFC though and/or properly source it. Otherwise, move on from my my talk page. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 16:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I have opened a discussion on the relevant talk page. It is reasonable to describe him as a professional boxer as his fight against Mayweather was one of the highest grossing of all time. I also think his whiskey venture makes it fair to describe him as a businessman. As per BRD, please don't revert again without discussion. Thanks. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- @ NEDOCHAN: I have opened a discussion with rfc. This is such a ridiculous statement, there will be majority consensus soon. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 07:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I was interested in knowing if there is a specific criteria for including actor in a lede - such as number of acting appearances etc. If not, since his career trajectory (and almost all of his pre-idol work) is moving towards projects that encompass more that releasing original albums/songs - why the need to remove it? Thanks. Jordan200 ( talk) 23:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- @ Jordan200: Sure, the “qualification” is that the lede should only feature roles most notable and as described by majority reliable provided sources. An overwhelming portion of Adam Lamberts filmography section features him in a non character role. If he were not a singer, he would not even have a Wikipedia page, hence he is not notable as an actor. The occupation infobox typically serves the purpose for lesser career fame contributions, across several hundred other articles. He does not have even a single decent supporting role as actor in any moderate level tv/film production and there are no reliable sources provided that would describe him as such. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 11:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thanks for responding. I understand, I think he was considered a musical theater actor before appearing on american idol - he does have numerous roles in actual productions; TV i'd say the 5 ep arc as "elliot' in glee is prob the most substantive. absolutely true he would not have a wiki page if not for his singing. It would be good if this criteria were applied uniformly across pages though... If you remove "actor", unless/until there's something new, I won't touch it. Jordan200 ( talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make baseless accusations about me and stopped hounding me. I hope this is enough of a warning and there is no need to escalate into a user conduct dispute on you. Shexantidote ( talk) 02:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ Shexantidote: You'll be blocked soon. I've already opened a sockpuppet investigation on you, now get off my talk page. Find a better hobby, you're bad at this. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 02:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi ChicagoWikiEditor! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Andrew Tate that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see
Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.
Throast {{ping}} me! (
talk |
contribs) 19:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Stoarm (
talk) 18:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Stoarm L ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 02:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, ChicagoWikiEditor, this is about a minor issue concerning removal and redaction in discussions, which I thought you'd want to know about, if you're not already aware. Per
WP:REDACT, if you leave a comment in a discussion, you can still edit it and change it, as long as no one else has replied yet. But, if someone else *has* replied, then special rules apply. If you just remove your comment (or alter it), it can make the responder's reply look foolish, or just mysterious, as in, "what the hell are they talking about?" or, "who are they talking to?" In order to avoid that, please see the strikethrough and underscore convention recommended at
WP:REDACT; this allows you to change your earlier comment, while still retaining conversational integrity and without confusing anybody that comes along later to follow the back-and-forth of the discussion as it proceeded.
This was an issue recently at the Alec Baldwin Rfc due to this edit where you removed or altered a comment of yours that I had already replied to, leaving my reply looking pretty mysterious. Please don't worry about this, and don't try to fix it now (it would probably just make things even more confusing at this point). I added a housekeeping note, in case anyone is interested (which I doubt), so the best thing now is just to leave it alone, but keep WP:REDACT in mind for next time. Thanks, and happy editing! Mathglot ( talk) 18:56, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, we lucked out! Check out my !vote now, at the Rfc. I had to use
redaction to alter my vote; this is a good example of the REDACT convention in use. See how the strikethrough and underscore makes it clear how and what was changed? Thanks,
Mathglot (
talk) 19:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
- @ Mathglot Noted. Thank you! ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 14:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Disagreeing with someone's change isn't a free pass to make patronizing remarks like this where you implied I'm an idiot. Please refrain from those, and to answer your question, I most certainly am NOT "thick". SNUGGUMS ( talk / edits) 03:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ SNUGGUMS I didn't imply you were an idiot, I asked directly if you were thick? You said no, thanks for getting back to me on that.
- It was you who actually implied that you understood my edit summary when you did not. What followed was your gross misunderstanding of how the word "produced" had been used. You're not a very competent editor, in my opinion. You don't even seem to understand basic lede guidelines, and you've got the nerve to follow and revert two of my edits.
- If I were to open an RFC regarding the use of "television judge" in the lede of the Katy Perry article, it would likely end with vast majority support for it's removal. As I've already stated, "there is very little mention of her prominence as a television judge throughout the entire lede introductory" Refer to WP:LEDE and WEIGHT. It's like adding YouTuber to Will Smiths lede. She is notable for being a singer, she only happens to currently have a "judge" gig. She does not "judge" regularly on different shows. Is Mariah Carey listed as a "former judge" in her lede or occupation infobox? She judged America Idol as well, correct? The reason she doesn't have this label is because she had already widely achieved her notability as Singer, songwriter, and actress. Regarding this summary on the topic, television personality is the majority catch all descriptor used for notable TV persons. It's better (at least for the lede) than listing them off "specifically" as host, judge, presenter etc.)
- I'm getting really bored with requesting consensus for such simple edits, but stay tuned, when I get more time that RFC might be coming soon to teach you a lesson in MOS:ROLEBIO. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 05:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I resent that unfounded remark on being "not a very competent editor", and your lack of remorse for condescending me with it as well as the rude "thick" comment is quite unfortunate. There was no need for you to say such things. Quite frankly, you aren't giving me nearly enough credit for the times I've helped improve pages, and I'm not just talking about anything that was linked here. As someone who's been around for years and made many constructive changes that others genuinely appreciate, I'd rather not have my work be undermined. Your use of ROLEBIO feels overly strict as discussing something within one sentence from a lead doesn't automatically mean it can't be applied as an occupation as you seem to think (perhaps expanding on text could help). Neither does having other occupations that come up after initial fame is reached. An extended time delved into something can help make it worthy of the opening sentence, and same goes for records achieved, so I felt your removals of "record producer" and "television judge" unfairly downplayed their respective works. Not familiar enough with Will's YouTube endeavors to comment on that, but I haven't decided whether one season alone of judging would be worth adding it for Mariah. Two seasons or more would make a stronger case. Either way, that comment on teaching me "a lesson" just comes off as rubbing it in my face how you think I was wrong to make the edits I did.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 06:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- @
SNUGGUMS You're corny, do you speak this way in real-life? How do you expect me not to fuck with you? Half of your post consist of you complaining about a thing I said that wouldn't make the typical person cry, only you. As I said, in my opinion your understanding regarding basic lede guidelines are shit. Based on my three recent "conflicts" with you. My opinion on that basis is not "unfounded". My comment about teaching you "a lesson" in ROLEBIO wasn't about me rubbing in your face "how I think you are wrong", It's about how much of the RFC community will agree you are wrong. Cheers
ChicagoWikiEditor (
talk) 23:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia IS part of real life. Whether this was intentional or not, you treating those terms as separate things perpetuates a problematic notion that everything on the site is inherently fake when in reality there are many genuine interactions conducted through there and lots of accurate content within articles. Please don't belittle the encyclopedia with such misleading implications. How I speak varies from scenario to scenario. Anyway, I'm not exactly someone who cries over your blatant incivility or how you're making things worse by shamelessly continuing to demean me, just wish you wouldn't keep doing that or act so arrogant. Disagreeing with my changes to articles is one thing, but my understanding of guidelines actually is NOT "shit" as you wrote, and openly mocking me by asking how I expect you to not "fuck with" me is completely inappropriate.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 00:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ SNUGGUMS Didn't read. "Cheers" means go away, SNUGGUMS. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 02:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia IS part of real life. Whether this was intentional or not, you treating those terms as separate things perpetuates a problematic notion that everything on the site is inherently fake when in reality there are many genuine interactions conducted through there and lots of accurate content within articles. Please don't belittle the encyclopedia with such misleading implications. How I speak varies from scenario to scenario. Anyway, I'm not exactly someone who cries over your blatant incivility or how you're making things worse by shamelessly continuing to demean me, just wish you wouldn't keep doing that or act so arrogant. Disagreeing with my changes to articles is one thing, but my understanding of guidelines actually is NOT "shit" as you wrote, and openly mocking me by asking how I expect you to not "fuck with" me is completely inappropriate.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 00:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @
SNUGGUMS You're corny, do you speak this way in real-life? How do you expect me not to fuck with you? Half of your post consist of you complaining about a thing I said that wouldn't make the typical person cry, only you. As I said, in my opinion your understanding regarding basic lede guidelines are shit. Based on my three recent "conflicts" with you. My opinion on that basis is not "unfounded". My comment about teaching you "a lesson" in ROLEBIO wasn't about me rubbing in your face "how I think you are wrong", It's about how much of the RFC community will agree you are wrong. Cheers
ChicagoWikiEditor (
talk) 23:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I resent that unfounded remark on being "not a very competent editor", and your lack of remorse for condescending me with it as well as the rude "thick" comment is quite unfortunate. There was no need for you to say such things. Quite frankly, you aren't giving me nearly enough credit for the times I've helped improve pages, and I'm not just talking about anything that was linked here. As someone who's been around for years and made many constructive changes that others genuinely appreciate, I'd rather not have my work be undermined. Your use of ROLEBIO feels overly strict as discussing something within one sentence from a lead doesn't automatically mean it can't be applied as an occupation as you seem to think (perhaps expanding on text could help). Neither does having other occupations that come up after initial fame is reached. An extended time delved into something can help make it worthy of the opening sentence, and same goes for records achieved, so I felt your removals of "record producer" and "television judge" unfairly downplayed their respective works. Not familiar enough with Will's YouTube endeavors to comment on that, but I haven't decided whether one season alone of judging would be worth adding it for Mariah. Two seasons or more would make a stronger case. Either way, that comment on teaching me "a lesson" just comes off as rubbing it in my face how you think I was wrong to make the edits I did.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 06:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Your comment here in the edit summary, ChicagoWikiEditor, was out of line. Your follow up personal attacks on this page don't help. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ Escape Orbit Agree to disagree. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 02:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. My warning wasn't pointless at all, hence this block. Continuing the hostile behavior via your edit summaries will lead to longer blocks and an indefinite block, so please stop doing them. Acalamari 05:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ Acalamari Indeed a pointless warning. For one I would have to be bothered by the threat of block (I wasn’t, hence the revert) and secondly your “warning” to not make any more “personal attacks” pertaining to a conversation on my talk page which was concluded on three days prior; a pointless threat. You’re scorned that your internet authority was undermined when I undid the edit, “hence this block”. A sad an personally telling resort.
- There’s no such thing as “indefinite blocks” on Wikipedia, sorry. Not that I’d care to make the effort getting around one (this is a passive background hobby at best).
- Furthermore, as far as I can tell we speak the same language, don’t question me “is that clear” regarding such basic statement. I don’t know if thats how your boss or mommy speak to you and that’s where you got it from, but leave the condescending remarks wherever they were used on you, don’t bring them to others via Wikipedia because as an admin here you feel empowered. ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 09:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
After this edit on Meta combined with your recent messages here, you are blocked indefinitely. Acalamari 21:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- @ Acalamari Yeah, I didn't make that edit ? and I'm pretty sure you know that. Factually certain that what I said above, in my most recent reply (not the one from the obviously fake account) hit close to home for you based on this goofy maneuver lol. Why would I use an alternate account to make a vandalizing edit? And censoring out my profanities? Oh yeah, very in character. You’re dull as hell. No wonder being a wiki admin is the highest ”achievement” of your life. I’m partial to carry on editing Wikipedia after all just to spite you thinking you can "indefinitely block" me lmao. Cheers. Hopefully your quality of life gets better. You probably coordinated this yourself (or your skulls a donut). Such a clown move, haha. I'm not even interested in appealing, I can literally create another account if I choose, its not difficult lol ChicagoWikiEditor ( talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)