Hello, Spooderman6920, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!
Atlantic306 (
talk) 22:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Dorsetonian. I noticed that you made a comment on the page
Talk:Prime (drink) that didn't seem very
civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Per
this edit.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 17:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- And
this was, frankly, ridiculous.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 17:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I was more frustrated that this so called veteran was being rude to myself and being toxic when like you said I was just trying to collaborate to a page, if my contribution needs amending or anything then why not help and assist a newbie like myself and approach it with kindness as opposed to rudeness and toxicity. Maybe what I left on his page was petty/too much but it goes to show he's been pulled up for this thing before and I just copied what was already in place so my apologies. But I guarantee you haven't told him off for not being civil, only me. I tried to be respectful but that went nowhere and I was met with toxicity which I think quite frankly was unfair. Like you said wiki is about collaboration and respect so where was mine in that situation, and why do I receive all the backlash. Regardless if I am new and he is a veteran of the site we should both be met with the same punishment/warning as he was the same with me if not worse because he started off the toxicity and pettiness.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 20:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- You really need to stop with the attacks against a fellow editor. Dorsetonian ( talk) 06:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I was more frustrated that this so called veteran was being rude to myself and being toxic when like you said I was just trying to collaborate to a page, if my contribution needs amending or anything then why not help and assist a newbie like myself and approach it with kindness as opposed to rudeness and toxicity. Maybe what I left on his page was petty/too much but it goes to show he's been pulled up for this thing before and I just copied what was already in place so my apologies. But I guarantee you haven't told him off for not being civil, only me. I tried to be respectful but that went nowhere and I was met with toxicity which I think quite frankly was unfair. Like you said wiki is about collaboration and respect so where was mine in that situation, and why do I receive all the backlash. Regardless if I am new and he is a veteran of the site we should both be met with the same punishment/warning as he was the same with me if not worse because he started off the toxicity and pettiness.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 20:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
You have now used the words "toxic/toxicity" 12 times on various pages in attacking AndyTheGrump. This from a user who complains other people are incivil... And when GoatLordServant said they disagreed Andy had been aggressive to you, and advised you gently to not escalate conflicts, you replied with more fighting words and more of the "toxic" (just as you do to Dorsetonian above). Since kindly advice has had no effect, I will tell you straight that the next time you attack Andy, you will be blocked for personal attacks. I have read the entire exchange between you and Andy, including the edit summaries at Prime (drink), so any "he started it" flapdoodle from you will not impress me. Bishonen | tålk 08:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC).
- So in other words you are accepting no fault from him, I believe he was rude and uncivil in a time where a newcomer only required guidance, help and explanations yet everyone seems to not see this from my POV and decide to come after the newbie as opposed to the veteran. I see this as a complete violation of everything the site and editors are supposed to stand for. I have admitted I was wrong and I was petty and I admit that again now, but the failure to see why I went on that path and why I was upset baffles me as it wasn't for no reason. I don't agree these were personal attacks as I was giving the same uncivil testament I believe I was met with and responding to that. The word toxic is a word to summarise a given response and way of acting without prolonging it hence the over use but I don't regard that as a personal attack in my own eyes. I will continue to edit on the pages I have been in my own world far from any form of potential corruption. Spooderman6920 ( talk) 18:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Prime (drink). 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. Dorsetonian ( talk) 23:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I reverted an edit which wasn't given an explanation. I have seen plenty of edits reverted due to a lack of reason hence why I put the message when I re added my edit, not out of bitterness or whatever, I was sticking to rules and asking for a reason for the removal of said edit. If you didn't want it on there or you didn't think it was a necessary change then you could of just talk paged me earlier nicely or explained on an edit revert, there is no need to say I'm in a war with you as that is not the case, I am picking up on your mistakes of not giving a reason for an edit removal as it looks like it may be out of bitterness due to the previous engagement I had on that page. I have no interest in continuing this so called war with you as it isn't that big of a deal to me, I simply thought my edit may be decent enough to remain on the page as it just helps with reading of what those said flavours are (e.g. the name meta moon doesn't give off a lot) and the order they were released in. If that change isn't wanted then that is fine but please tell me first before you jump onto "edit war" and "banning" over a lack of communication on your own part as I don't know why it was removed or anything along those lines.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 23:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have just checked if you left a reason on the revert and there isn't one. I am just wondering why as I asked on my revert? It looks to me as you have just called me out for being in an "edit war" for the sake of it.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are completely mistaken - I cited [[WP:V]], the policy on
verifiability. Your text had
already been challenged as
original research by
The Master of Hedgehogs and should not have been restored at all, per
WP:BURDEN. So, re-adding your text contrary to policy and when opposed by two other editors was most definitely disruptive. Where we might agree is that the existing text was already quite poor and does need improvement. It was inadequately sourced, but adding even more unsourced content just made the problem worse.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 07:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't see the edit by Master of Hedgehogs so that's my fault. As a somewhat newbie I would of appreciated the comment on the revision or a talk page message over an edit war flag as you can tell I meant no harm and was just confused and didn't see certain content. I believe the edit war flag was too far in that regard as it could of been mentioned earlier and more civilly, but that's just my opinion.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 12:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your assertion that you didn't see the edit by
The Master of Hedgehogs is somewhat contradicted by the edit history, where you responded directly to it:
-
The Master of Hedgehogs:
Honestly, release order for some flavors depends on the person, i.e both Lemon Lime and Blue Raspberry dropped simultaneously, it could be BR then LL or LL then BR
-
You:
Undid revision 1182365723 by The Master of Hedgehogs hi yeah I am well aware the first 5 flavours dropped at the same time but the last time I edited I got into an edit war over it. If you disagree and would rather the original flavours be separate then feel free :)
-
The Master of Hedgehogs:
- Somewhat ironic, too, that you started an edit war with that edit summary.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 08:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I meant that, I didn't see it was him who made the comment, and when I went back through the history the other day I didn't notice it. Why do you have to be on my back so much also, I am just trying to help pages and if my ideas aren't wanted or appreciated that is fine but thee is no need to flag me for an edit war before saying a single thing to me or anything like that. Just let me breathe man ahahah. Spooderman6920 ( talk) 16:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Your assertion that you didn't see the edit by
The Master of Hedgehogs is somewhat contradicted by the edit history, where you responded directly to it:
- I didn't see the edit by Master of Hedgehogs so that's my fault. As a somewhat newbie I would of appreciated the comment on the revision or a talk page message over an edit war flag as you can tell I meant no harm and was just confused and didn't see certain content. I believe the edit war flag was too far in that regard as it could of been mentioned earlier and more civilly, but that's just my opinion.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 12:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are completely mistaken - I cited [[WP:V]], the policy on
verifiability. Your text had
already been challenged as
original research by
The Master of Hedgehogs and should not have been restored at all, per
WP:BURDEN. So, re-adding your text contrary to policy and when opposed by two other editors was most definitely disruptive. Where we might agree is that the existing text was already quite poor and does need improvement. It was inadequately sourced, but adding even more unsourced content just made the problem worse.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 07:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have just checked if you left a reason on the revert and there isn't one. I am just wondering why as I asked on my revert? It looks to me as you have just called me out for being in an "edit war" for the sake of it.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
You did not properly attribute the source of this page when you created it. As it was an internal copy ("copying within wikipedia") see WP:CWW for an explanation for why this is a problem and how you can now fix it. Dorsetonian ( talk) 09:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm just slightly confused by this and what you mean. I just thought adding the discography to a separate page just cleans the page up a bit and allows for all content to be in that one place such as many other notable artist pages. I may be reading this wrong but of course I would of copied it over to the new page? Juts a bit confused. I would appreciate if you could help me out with my edits as my knowledge goes as far as the simple text code, I just make changes that I think work and make sense. Spooderman6920 ( talk) 12:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not disputing the page split, but you did not attribute the new page content properly - it's all explained at WP:CWW which I linked to above.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 08:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- god you're so helpful
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 16:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- that's sarcastic btw. I was just asking for help, so if I continue to get things wrong then so be it as I asked for your verbal help and maybe an example/explanation of what I need to do, but no so if I will by not mistake of my own continue to make errors
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 16:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- I obviously can't give you verbal help; I can only communicate with you in writing. And as what I would write is already written down, it really would make sense if you just went and read it.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- I gave up waiting and did it for you. Dorsetonian ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I obviously can't give you verbal help; I can only communicate with you in writing. And as what I would write is already written down, it really would make sense if you just went and read it.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 19:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- that's sarcastic btw. I was just asking for help, so if I continue to get things wrong then so be it as I asked for your verbal help and maybe an example/explanation of what I need to do, but no so if I will by not mistake of my own continue to make errors
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 16:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- god you're so helpful
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 16:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Not disputing the page split, but you did not attribute the new page content properly - it's all explained at WP:CWW which I linked to above.
Dorsetonian (
talk) 08:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Following on from the discussion about verification and sourcing at Prime (drink), I noticed you have added significant content to the articles Lil Tjay discography, Joyner Lucas discography and Lil Skies discography without a single supporting reference. WP:Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and must be followed so please add suitable references to support your changes. Dorsetonian ( talk) 09:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Which content is it? It is the music video section as when I have the time I can reference the videos if that is what you mean. Like I said in my previous comment, any help that you can do yourself would be appreciated and then helping me along would be too.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 12:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have added references to the lil mosey video section. I will do the lil tjay, lil skies and Joyner Lucas ones when I can.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 13:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- I removed your content because after two weeks you still had not added any sources - it should not have stayed even that long. You have simply put it back again - this is not ok. You are welcome to restore it if at the same time you add references. The onus is on you to do this - see WP:BURDEN. Your edit summaries when you restored said that I acted "purely out of pettiness" but this is not so - verifiability is one of the central policies on Wikipedia and is non-negotiable. I consider those comments to be a personal attack. Please consider yourself warned not to restore unsourced content or persist with the personal attacks. Dorsetonian ( talk) 19:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have added references to the lil mosey video section. I will do the lil tjay, lil skies and Joyner Lucas ones when I can.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 13:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Bizzy Banks (November 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bizzy Banks and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Spooderman6920!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the
Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
Vanderwaalforces (
talk) 02:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Spooderman6920. Thank you for your work on All Is Yellow (Lyrical Lemonade album). Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
When moving this from draft to main space, you wrote: "please feel free to add to the page such as references and any additional info." Please note that you should not move an article from draft to main space without any references; that is your responsibility, not the responsibility of other editors.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
All Is Yellow (Lyrical Lemonade album) moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to All Is Yellow (Lyrical Lemonade album). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 19:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add unreferenced or
poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about
living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.
Brojam (
talk) 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- May I ask how the KSI filmography section is "poorly referenced", it has direct references to where the info is sourced from. It doesn't get more legit than the accounts they were announced on. Spooderman6920 ( talk) 21:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be
blocked from editing.
Paulpat99 (
talk) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- what page is this regarding. I haven't made any edits to main pages in a while so you're a bit late to the party pal. If its about the KSI page, not a clue why you undid the whole thing because I added 2024 as a year to the misfits section. The descriptions fair enough but it doesn't take a genius to click on the main article pages to see the misfits events. If that little section on KSI's page is supposed to be a summary of the whole of the misfits promotion it is poor.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 15:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not late to the party I warned you straight after I reverted the Misfits edit on the KSI page. You need to add the sources when you add the statements. Readers should not have to go hunting for sources they should be there. You can have a summary but it must be supported by a
WP:SOURCE.
Paulpat99 (
talk) 05:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't read that so my apologies. I am going to read 2024 in misfits back to the section as a main article however as I wont need a ref for that. Spooderman6920 ( talk) 16:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not late to the party I warned you straight after I reverted the Misfits edit on the KSI page. You need to add the sources when you add the statements. Readers should not have to go hunting for sources they should be there. You can have a summary but it must be supported by a
WP:SOURCE.
Paulpat99 (
talk) 05:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
The article Misfits Boxing (promotion) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
There is no need for a Misfits Boxing page. All information seen in this article can be found in the 2020s in Misfits pages and within KSI's page.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed you have removed the proposed deletion for Misfits Boxing (promotion) without any reasoning. Do not do this again. I understand that it may have taken you time to create this page, but it does not have any validation or reasoning to exist on its own. Not every company needs its own page. That is why Misfits Boxing already has a redirect to KSI#Misfits Boxing.
If you remove this proposal without any valid reasoning again, your account may be banned, as I have also noticed that this is not the first warning. GhaziTwaissi ( talk) 12:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think you'll find I did have reasoning in the talk page section. Try look a little harder next time buddy, don't be so trigger happy to threaten individuals just because you're a little bitter. You only don't want a misfits page as you have created all the others. This page allows a summary of the company, it's fighters and the events and if people want further info they can go to your pages which are all linked throughout my page.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 14:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to be rude. I have just replied to your
Talk:Misfits Boxing (promotion) response and the claim is not enough to justify having an entire page. Me creating other pages revolving the Misfits Boxing scene does not mean I "don't want a misfits page as you have created all the others," if that is the case then I would've already created one. You need to understand that not everything that exists needs its own page. For example,
KSI vs Swarmz & Luis Alcaraz Pineda originally had its own page, but was then changed to a redirect to
2023 in Misfits Boxing#MF & DAZN: X Series 001 as it was deemed not important enough.
GhaziTwaissi (
talk) 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I apologise if I was rude, it's just frustrating because I spent so long on the page. It's annoying because things that I create/change never receive the same reception I give them and they just get removed or reverted and it's just frustrating as I feel I'm not breaking any rules. I just don't see if your way and the way the wiki see's things, it just doesn't compute to me, so to me my page is more than valid regardless of the other pages, to me the page I made is a hub for all that info, if that makes sense. I'm sorry for being rude, it's just frustrating to have it all reverted when to me it makes nothing but sense to have that. Spooderman6920 ( talk) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to be rude. I have just replied to your
Talk:Misfits Boxing (promotion) response and the claim is not enough to justify having an entire page. Me creating other pages revolving the Misfits Boxing scene does not mean I "don't want a misfits page as you have created all the others," if that is the case then I would've already created one. You need to understand that not everything that exists needs its own page. For example,
KSI vs Swarmz & Luis Alcaraz Pineda originally had its own page, but was then changed to a redirect to
2023 in Misfits Boxing#MF & DAZN: X Series 001 as it was deemed not important enough.
GhaziTwaissi (
talk) 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think you'll find I did have reasoning in the talk page section. Try look a little harder next time buddy, don't be so trigger happy to threaten individuals just because you're a little bitter. You only don't want a misfits page as you have created all the others. This page allows a summary of the company, it's fighters and the events and if people want further info they can go to your pages which are all linked throughout my page.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 14:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not just ignore hidden notes when editing articles, as they are there for a reason. It is against policy to add films to filmographies before the start of filming, which you either knew or should have known thanks to the hidden notes. This is considered disruptive editing, and you will be blocked for it if you continue. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 12:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- no need for the threat pal. There are plenty of articles where this rule is ignored so need need to threaten me for it, just inform me of the rules thanks.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a threat, just a warning. It's standard practice here to inform/remind editors of the potential consequences when letting them know their edits are disruptive. JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 16:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Spooderman6920. Thank you for your work on Bizzy Banks. Trainsskyscrapers, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good job. You were able to discuss his upbringing and career though reputable sources. A few additional sources have been added, and some paragraphs have been modified for "flow", but this page was ultimately built on your work. Job well done! Between his charting on several national charts, extensive coverage in numerous reliable music publications, and connections with other artists, this page now passes notability.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Trainsskyscrapers}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the
Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Trainsskyscrapers ( talk) 22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Spooderman6920! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Andrew Garfield several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Andrew Garfield, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DonIago ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- the other editor is also doing the same thing so please add this message to their page also not just mine. I added a message about an edit war warning which they then removed (which is not allowed) so please also add this to their page.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I recommend you review WP:BLANKING; editors are allowed to remove messages of this nature from their Talk pages. As you already messaged them about it, I don't intend to do the same. DonIago ( talk) 03:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to
User talk:Krimuk2.0 has been
reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a
warning or blocking template. Please use the
user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our
introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The editor did not edit war today so your warning was inappropriate.
Lard Almighty (
talk) 21:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm confused. So only I get this treatment when they were doing the same thing? That is hardly fair. I added that because that is an edit war is it not? That's three times he has reverted my edit and therefore it would be an edit war right? Yet I'm the only one getting warnings about it. I want to see that message on his talk page also.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 13:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- You added a warning at 18:40 on 21 March which was totally inappropriate as the editor was not even close to edit warring. He reverted you twice, and those edits were more that 24 hours apart (
7:55, 15 March and
18:40, 16 March) The editor quite reasonably removed the warning per
WP:BLANKING and because it was inappropriate, which they are perfectly entitled to do. You reverted that deletion which again was totally inappropriate.
Lard Almighty (
talk) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- So if I reverted him a day apart I'd be totally fine? make it make sense honestly. Sometimes these rules make no sense. Because I did it less than 24 hours apart its the issue when I had a constructive reason to add the change I did, whereas theirs was just "yeah no not here". You say he wasn't close to a warning but he did 2 reverts and I did 3 and got a warning so yes they was close to one, you just didn't want to give them one.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Edit warring before you issue any more warnings about edit warring. You clearly don't understand the policy. It's three reverts in a 24-hour period. He wasn't even close to that. Lard Almighty ( talk) 10:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- So if I reverted him a day apart I'd be totally fine? make it make sense honestly. Sometimes these rules make no sense. Because I did it less than 24 hours apart its the issue when I had a constructive reason to add the change I did, whereas theirs was just "yeah no not here". You say he wasn't close to a warning but he did 2 reverts and I did 3 and got a warning so yes they was close to one, you just didn't want to give them one.
Spooderman6920 (
talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- You added a warning at 18:40 on 21 March which was totally inappropriate as the editor was not even close to edit warring. He reverted you twice, and those edits were more that 24 hours apart (
7:55, 15 March and
18:40, 16 March) The editor quite reasonably removed the warning per
WP:BLANKING and because it was inappropriate, which they are perfectly entitled to do. You reverted that deletion which again was totally inappropriate.
Lard Almighty (
talk) 13:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Pilaz. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Sidemen, but you didn't provide a
reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to
include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Instagram is not a reliable third-party source for Wikipedia. You should be able to justify additions of content per
WP:ONUS on the talk page. Your addition feels like it goes against
WP:NOTPROMO, the flavor of cereals Sidemen launched is not a crucial element to include in an encylopedic entry.
Pilaz (
talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Spooderman6920,
Thank you for creating GMTO Vol.1 (Get Money Take Over).
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Hi, thanks for creating this article! This mixtape has sources that can demostrate notability of the mixtape; this includes reviews which could definitely have this mixtape pass notability guidelines, including Pitchfork and others. Thanks! :)
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Tails Wx}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the
Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.