Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grace Park. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluerules. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluerules. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add your own personal analysis of review aggregators, such that you determine a film received "positive reviews". This is synthesis. See also, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 61#Using Metacritic to authoritatively state a film's reception. We can report that something has a certain rating, but we can't extrapolate from that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "personal analysis", however, to determine a film's general critical reception by review aggregators. Synthesis is defined as combing sources "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and the conclusion of a film receiving "generally positive reviews" (the statement I wrote) is explicitly stated by both sources - Metacritic states that Green Room received "generally favorable reviews" and Rotten Tomatoes states that its critical consensus is "[the film] delivers unapologetic genre thrills with uncommon intelligence and powerfully acted élan." Furthermore, in that WikiProject Film discussion, Gonein60 made the point that it's best to avoid a summarizing statement when the sources "disagree, or the results aren't as clear cut", which, as noted above, is not the case with Green Room.

Nevertheless, I am not opposed to removing "generally positive reviews" from the lead and you actually re-wrote that sentence the same way I intended to re-write it. I only wanted the Rotten Tomatoes rating out of the lead because it was awkwardly placed and better suited for the reception section. My intention was to follow what seems to be the general policy with film leads - I have seen many leads mention the general reception of the reviews, but not the exact ratings. The lead, of course, is intended for summaries, not specifics. Bluerules (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the article for Monmouth University cleaned up the list of notable alumni, but removed a number of sources. Please be careful to avoid deleting sources when performing cleanup like this. Alansohn (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the usual importance of sources, but is this an area that requires sources? Princeton's article, for example, doesn't place sources confirming that all of its noted alumni went there. I agree that the sources regarding an individual's education background should be on that individual's own entry, as individuals can lie about where they attended, but we do not expect institutions of higher learning to lie about their graduates/past students. Bluerules (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles that don't provide sources, but Wikipedia is built on the principal of sourcing. It's always better to use a third-party source from a newspaper, magazine or book. The school's website or publications are usually acceptable as a self-published source. Alansohn (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, which is why I have not removed the sources. However, this seems to be a bias against smaller schools - we seem to assume the Princeton alumni are who they claim to be, yet we doubt the more obscure institutions. Also, as my own advice, it is a good practice to keep the descriptions of the alumni as concise as possible, which was a big part of my clean-up effort. Sterling was just one example of out-of-date information - Light, Meredith, Pearce, and Valles are with teams not stated in the article, Lawless is with DNCE now, not the Jonas Brothers (the Jonas Brothers don't even exist anymore), and McDonald is currently on the WRAT, not SiriusXM - there are inconsistencies with how the alumni are described - links are included to other professional leagues, but not the NFL, and some of the athletes don't even have their leagues mentioned, and Holzapfel is said to be a former Assembly member, but not O'Scanlon, while O'Scanlon's district is listed, but not Holzapfel's - present occupations have to take priority over past ones - if Brandon is currently with a team other than the Broncos, that goes first - and a number of other information is inaccurate or too poorly-written - Lapin's source says he pioneered "bloodless surgery" for Jehovah's, not in general. Keep these as brief as possible, avoid going into detail about what they did, and let their professions speak for themselves. If an alumnus was a professional athlete in a professional league, that speaks for itself. If a reader wants to learn more about him or her, they go to that individual's own entry. Bluerules (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I'm not adding sources out of "bias against small schools". The identifying information is being added to let readers know who the person is, when they lived and why they're notable, along with a source documenting their connection to the school. I'm sure that you may find some of the details superfluous, just as I see a laundry list gallery of every available picture as superfluous. I'm happy to keep the gallery, which I will ignore as visual pollution and maybe you can have your eyes skip over the words "born 19??", while we leave all the details there for the benefit of readers. If some of the capsule descriptions are more detailed, why is the solution to bring them down to the lowest common denominator?

I fully support updating the capsule biographies and the reorganization by category, but there seems to be no policy to justify removal of dates because you deem them "superfluous" any more than to remove the gallery on the same basis. All of Wikipedia is superfluous. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you necessarily have a bias against small schools, I just find it a bit off that the sources are requested for a little-known institution like Monmouth, whereas Princeton's alumni do not have citations. The purpose of the section is, of course, to identify noted alumni and provide a brief description of who they are. However, like I said, it's generally assumed that the institution itself is not lying about its alumni, which is why we don't always see sources documenting their connection to the school; we see those sources on the individual's own page, because they're the ones who will lie about it.

However, the descriptions remain an issue because not only do many of them contain superfluous information, they are inconsistent. Some of the descriptions are superfluous - for example, listing all of the Survivor series LaGrossa appeared on, when a single link to the main Survivor entry establishes her notability - but not all are. My edits do not "bring [the descriptions] down to the lowest common denominator", they keep the most relevant information and provide it in a concise manner. Your description of Miles Austin, for example, says "retired football wide receiver who played in the NFL for the Dallas Cowboys, Cleveland Browns and Philadelphia Eagles". My description says "former American football wide receiver in the National Football League for the Dallas Cowboys, Cleveland Browns and Philadelphia Eagles". My description says the exact same thing as yours, but removes the unnecessary "who", identifies which form of football he played, and identifies what the NFL is. In fact, I added more details to the alumni than I previously had before in my last edit and these details have still been reverted back to their previous versions. In fact, important details for the benefit of readers have now been removed. You removed the leagues that many of the athletes played for. You removed the teams that they play for. For example, Chevannah Paalvast is an active player for a team. I added the team and league she plays for and you removed this. You throw in "NFL" without including a link to the NFL or explaining what the NFL is/what it stands for, while also linking and not abbreviating other league names, and not even including the league name, or even the sport for others. If bringing the descriptions down to the lowest common denominator is no solution, why did you do that with many of the descriptions? Why did you remove the details I added? The main issue here is inconsistency with the descriptions. What I am striving for above all else is consistency, which I am providing to these descriptions. For example, if the player is active, list his or her position, the team he or she is with, and what league that team is in. You can't pick or chose which alumni get their current teams and league listed and which don't. If it's provided for one, it has to be provided for all. With former athletes, notability plays a factor in adding the teams (since NFL teams are better known than Arena Football League teams), but all leagues should be noted because simply writing "professional basketball player" leaves readers wondering exactly where the alumni played. That is bringing the description down to the lowest common denominator.

It is inconsistent to identify Gove as "politician who serves in the New Jersey General Assembly", while Holzapfel and O'Scanlon are "member[s] of the New Jersey Senate". It is inconsistent to identify former Freeholder Lacey as "politician who served on the Ocean County Board of chosen freeholders" while former Freeholder McMorrow is identified immediately as a "former member of the Monmouth County Board of chosen freeholders". To continually remove McMorrow's current government position is also another case of bringing the descriptions down to the "lowest common denominator" because it overlooks the fact that she is still involved in government. It may not be a notable position by itself, but Freehold Township is notable enough to have its own entry and McMorrow is notable enough to have her own entry, courtesy of her Freeholder service. Current positions take precedence over past positions with an individual when explaining who they are. This is also seen with Brandon, who first identified as a "former cornerback for the Denver Broncos". If Brandon is playing for another team - which he is - that goes before any past teams he played for. That is what he currently is and currently is doing. When he retires, that's another story because the Broncos are the better-known team (at least in the US), but at the moment, what's more important is his current occupation. You also continue to revert Light's description back to the teams he formerly played for and removing the organization he is currently with. There are also many other inconsistencies, such as identifying some non-active athletes as "former" and others as "retired". Identify them all as one word, mixing the words around hurts the flow of the article. The "|" character from Chris Hogan is continually removed by you, yet that character is given to other alumni, such as Kennedy. Again, either they all have it or none of them have it. And to immediately identify Halicki by throwing a no-hitter is both superfluous and inconsistent. This is a trivia accomplishment; he's notable by the simple fact that he played professionally. Why do we not identify Austin as two-time Pro Bowler or Hogan as a Super Bowl-winner? Even grammar issues exist - the version you keep reverting to with LaGrossa reads "reality show contestant was featured on". Including "was" by itself is grammatically incorrect, it should be either "who was" or be removed. And Thornton's description is missing a comma. If you do support updating the capsule biographies, I ask you to not revert the biographies to previous versions that suffer from inconsistencies, superfluous details, and omit important details.

I added the gallery because many other college entries, such as The College of New Jersey, have one. If you deem it as "visual pollution", I am not necessarily against removing it, or at least removing some of the pictures. Not many Monmouth alumni have pictures on their articles, which is why a "laundry list" of every available picture can at least be used without it affecting the article. However, it is not superfluous because it has a noted benefit - it adds a visual benefit for readers. That's why we have pictures on articles in the first place - it keeps readers interested in reading them. The dates are superfluous because they have no prominent benefit. There is no policy to justify keeping the dates either and the policy on Wikipedia is to keep only relevant information on articles. The dates are not relevant to this article. As you said the identifying information is there to inform readers who the alumni are and why they are notable. Birth dates do not explain why they are notable, which is why they are superfluous. If you remove the birth dates, the purpose of the section is fulfilled. When written correctly, Wikipedia is never superfluous. Encyclopedias are never superfluous. They provide information in a clear, concise, and purely factual manner. That's why people rely on them for information.

I appreciate your work in finding more alumni to add to the page - and this may warrant its own entry - but it's best to leave the organization and descriptions to me. This section was a mess beforehand, with non-notables added, not even listed in alphabetical order, and poorly-written descriptions with details that were superfluous. I don't know for how long these errors stood, but I am now making the effort to improve the organization of this section, and it is best if we avoid going back to the way this section was before. The article itself is in need of improvement - it is a skeleton in need of more information. For example, the history section is just a mere two sentences long. Would it be best if you worked on what needs further details while I work on what needs to be trimmed? Bluerules (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what best encapsulates what's wrong here is your insistence that "it's best to leave the organization and descriptions to me". Who put you in charge? Let's work on building consensus, which may be easier once you realize that we are all in charge of editing and organizing this article. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made that insistence because no other users made the effort to clean-up the alumni section before I made my edits and I have attempted to be progressive in my edits. I included sources, even if I don't necessarily agree with their inclusion, and brought new sources into the article for those who didn't have citations and the names I added myself. I've tried to find a middle ground between including all the necessary information and not having excessive information/wording. Like I said in my previous message, I've included more details in the descriptions than I did in the past. You definitely deserve credit for all of the sources and names you've found, as well as creating a faculty section, but many of your descriptions are simply retreads of what the existing articles say, many of which are not-well written due to the obscurity of the subjects. That's not your fault as you didn't write these article, but there does need to be more care in writing the descriptions - for example, Oxley's initial description put his former position before his current position, when like I said before, current positions take precedence over past positions. I'm not in charge, and I'm not saying I'm in charge of the entire article, but I do feel like I'm one of the few users who actually cares about having the Monmouth University article improved. This is an article with less than 1,000 edits, had no edits between December and February, had a poorly-written alumni section that nobody else tried cleaning-up before, and like I mentioned in my previous message, contains only bare-bones information - chiefly the history section, which is only a mere two sentences long. I know well that this is a collaboration between editors and we're all supposed to be in charge of editing and organizing this article, but it's also important to recognize that there are also neglected articles that only a handful of editors actually care about improving. It'll be hard for us to get a consensus with other editors when we seem to be the only editors actually making meaningful contributions to the article. Bluerules (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It will be harder to reach consensus if we don't both make an effort. This is an article that I edited only after you had violated policy by removing every single one of the sources included about notables in this edit; my first assumption was that it was vandalism. While you reordered the list and removed some non-notables, my follow-up edits have added a few dozen notables, each one with biographical details taken from their article and accompanied by an appropriate source. I'm not sure on what basis the fact that the article was crappy before you reordered the list of alumni gives you the authority to decide thereafter what is superfluous and how individuals must be described.

"I made that insistence because no other users made the effort to clean-up the alumni section before I made my edits and I have attempted to be progressive in my edits."?!?!?! You had edited the article more frequently and more recently than I had (six edits in 2016 and 2017), and yet you had never added any material or a single source in any of these edits; is that what grants you the authority to insist that "it's best to leave the organization and descriptions to me"?!?! I'm OK with the pictures, which even you seem to agree were excessive, and I'm more than fine with the regrouping (even if I disagree about Thornton, who is primarily known as an author *NOT* as a physician), and some of the descriptions could be better than what is in the articles for these individuals. Yet many of these sanitized descriptions are sterile and stilted (e.g., the excessive use of "gridiron football" and "American football") and some of the descriptions are either excessively detailed (Barbara J. McMorrow's position as a member of the Freehold Township Committee is trivial) or leave out critical details (e.g., all we know about Ron Lapin is that he's a physician, not that he's a pioneer in bloodless surgery). I'm not sure that you've shown enough effort to find a "middle ground" other than to insist that you should be put in charge.

How about we try to find a genuine middle ground, which might well involve keeping more of what you have arbitrarily decided is superfluous and letting other readers (and editors) make the decision for themselves. Maybe we can start with the faculty section I created as a starting point to find some consensus rather than turn it into a faculty directory. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I am making that effort by expanding the descriptions to include all relevant information while re-working the wording. I am making that effort by including all of the citations, even if I do not believe they are necessary and adding them when I find new names. Removing citations is not a violation of policy nor vandalism when citations are not necessary. Before either of us changed this section, the majority of the alumni did not have citations. Some citations also had to be removed regardless because the names they were attached to were removed, due to those individuals not being notable enough to have their own entries. I have repeatedly given you credit for your efforts in finding new alumni to add to the page. However, your descriptions are often simply retreads of what the alumni's own page says, which results in inconsistencies and excessive wording that can be removed without impacting the information provided to the reader. Furthermore, whereas I will make alterations to my initial descriptions to further improve them, you simply revert back to your existing descriptions and their existing flaws. Refer to your most recent revision of the faculty section, where you re-inserted Oxley's description of being a "former Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey who is a judge on the New Jersey Superior Court". Again, as Oxley is currently a New Jersey Superior Court judge, that takes precedence over his past profession and my edit presented this same information in less words - "New Jersey Superior Court judge and former Monmouth County sheriff". I am not saying there is any "basis [from] the fact that the article was crappy before [I] reordered the list of alumni gives [me] the authority to decide thereafter what is superfluous and how individuals must be described." I am not saying I have any authority at all. What I am saying is my descriptions are more effective, more consistent, and more beneficial to the article. Again, I have shown this through keeping the descriptions consistent, presenting the same necessary information in less words, and continuing to make alterations to my previous edits when I recognize that they're not as effective as they could be.

The fact that I edited the article more frequently and recently than you had only demonstrates that I have been concerned about the status of the article and improving it. You level criticism at me because I "never added any material or a single source in any of these edits", when the edits did add material and you overlook the fact that none of them required any sources. Most of them were stylistic changes to keep the article consistent with itself and other university articles - removing the redundant university link under the type parameter (which university articles typically do not include in the type parameter), making the color capitalization consistent, making the spacing between the infobox parameters consistent, and making the hyphens consistent. But I also added the former names of the university infobox, like other university pages, and I added a link to the athletic teams in the infobox, which was missing. I think we can both agree that at the end of the day, pictures improve articles (that's why there were already images in other sections beforehand) and the regrouping helps the organization and flow of the article. While I appreciate that you find that some of the descriptions could be better than what is in the article, your critiques of my edits do not hold up to scrutiny. You call the "sanitized descriptions are sterile and stilted", citing "excessive use of 'gridiron football' and 'American football'". But how are these alumni supposed to be identified then? Why was your frequent use of "professional basketball player" not an excessive use? Football, of course, has different meanings, which is why the form needs to be identified, and American football is not the same as other forms of gridiron football (e.g. Canadian football). These descriptions provide all the necessary and important information. You say "some of the descriptions are excessively detailed", calling McMorrow's current political position on the Freehold Township Committee "trivial". It would be trivial if she was no longer on that committee, but she is, it's her current role in politics and government (the name of that subsection, after all), and Freehold Township is at least relevant enough to have its own entry. You claim the descriptions "leave out critical details" and cite Lapin's description, but overlook the fact that Lapin's previous description was a misrepresentation of the source provided. The source said Lapin "pioneered the field of bloodless surgery for Jehovah's Witnesses", not that he did it in general. I'm not necessarily against this detail, but it needs to be presented accurately. You may say that you're "not sure that [I]'ve shown enough effort to find a 'middle ground' other than to insist that [I] should be put in charge" (and at the end of the day, we're both insisting that our edits are superior), but also at the end of the day, I am the one who changes my edits. Many of my initial descriptions have changed from when I first wrote them and I have added further details. You, on the other hand, continually just re-insert your previous edits when changing my descriptions. In your very first edit, you put Meredith, Sterling, and Valles back on teams they no longer play for, put Sterling back to his incorrect position, put Brikowski back as an active player with a team (which he is not), put Lawless back to the band that not only does he no longer play for, no longer exists, and put MacDonald back to the radio station he is no longer with. When I pointed out Sterling was one example of out-of-date information, you allowed him to be updated, but didn't make the effort to see which other information was out-of-date and brought that out-of-date information back to the page. You repeatedly removed the organization is Light is currently with and replaced it with teams he no longer plays for. When you added a number of basketball players to the page, I added the leagues they played for. You removed the leagues without reason and removed the team that Paalvast is currently playing for. And you brought back typos with LaGrossa and Thornton. While you may no longer be ending the alumni section for the time being, this is practice you are continuing to engage in with the faculty section.

Like I said, superfluous details are just one problem with the descriptions. Dates of birth are superfluous because they are not relevant to the topic at hand - why these individuals are notable. If I have "arbitrarily decided" what is superfluous, why have no other readers and editors other than yourself inserted dates of birth into alumni and faculty sections of a school? Why have no other readers and editors decided this is necessary information to the page? The way Oxley's description is currently written is superfluous because again, the same information can be provided in less words. The main issue is consistency, which the descriptions of the faculty lack. Again, I altered my initial descriptions for the faculty to improve them. My initial descriptions only focused on their occupations outside of Monmouth and I have since added what they teach/what their positions at the school are. You, however, again re-inserted your previous descriptions unchanged from before. As a result, there is no consistency in these descriptions - some don't have the major they teach listed, some aren't even correct (Emmons and Febos were/are in the English Department and therefore taught/teach English, there is no "creative writing/writing" department), and the descriptions remain excessive (in addition to Oxley, why is Handlin identified as a "politician who represents the 13th Legislative District on the New Jersey General Assembly" instead of simply a member of the New Jersey General Assembly, like the alumni are?). As for turning the faculty section into a "faculty directory", refer to how the Rutgers' page describes its faculty - the position at the school goes first. When the main topic of the page is the school, their connection/employment to the school is primary to the other reasons why they are notable. The school, again, is the primary topic of the article. And I still kept the general information as to why the faculty members are relevant - if the works of Febos and Gilvarry are relevant to warrant mention, why are they not relevant enough to have their own pages? - and it is misleading to identify Tucker with "I Don't Want to Set the World on Fire" when he's not the original recording artist. If you want to find a genuine middle ground, that starts by not immediately undoing my edits and re-inserting your own. I do not remove the names and citations you add to the page and I believe you have helped the page in this respect. Bluerules (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Deadpool (film). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. Sorry about that. Bluerules (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop incorrectly formatting the template. It is designed to be used as it was before you changed it. If you don't like how it works then that is an issue that you need to raise at the talk page for that template. And saying that other articles already do it wrong does not justify you doing it wrong now. Also, your flimsy support for that SYNTHY claim is really not good enough. Just because something seems obvious to you after watching a trailer does not mean it should be added as fact to an encyclopaedia page. The only reason I have not reverted your edits again is to avoid continuing this ridiculous edit war. Since you were the one to make the bold changes first, I strongly suggest that you self revert and then follow WP:BRD by waiting for talk page consensus before re-implementing anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herein lies some of the problems that have created these issues. I raised the issue of the infobox template on the talk page as requested nearly eight hours before you left me this message. I stopped editing the template on Deadpool as requested nearly eight hours before you wrote this message on the talk page. If you maintain your opposition to my formatting of the template, the place to express that is now on the article's talk page, not on my talk page. I did not make mention of your opposition to changing the infobox because this is supposed to be about the edits, not an individual editor.

You continue to call my formatting of the template "incorrect", but do not explain how. You say it is designed to be used as it was" before my edits, but do not explain how. You say the other articles are doing it "wrong", but don't explain how. You are not citing any policies/rules that require the names in the "based on" parameter to be separated by "|" instead of "< br >". In fact, I checked the history of the Deadpool article and the initial edits also used the "< br >" character for the "based on" parameter instead of "|". The article was using the "< br >" character as late as 16 June 2017 and sure enough, you were the one who changed the character. If it was designed to be used as the way you changed it to, why did other editors use "< br >" and use it for over two years? I do not see how this is an issue when regardless of the character used, the infobox typically has the exact same appearance. I explained that the problem was the parameter was appearing as "byFabian" on my computer and changing the format corrected this issue. Again, you have not explained why your formatting is correct, you only say it is, and the changing the formatting seems hardly to be an issue when it appears exactly the same on another computer of mine.

For the Deadpool 2 issue with Russell, let's review why this is not a "SYNTHY claim" with "flimsy support". Before I changed the premise to include Russell's name, the cast section was already changed to identify Julian Dennison's character as being named Russell and being the young mutant whom Cable is hunting. The reference used to identify the hunted young mutant as Russell in the cast section is the same reference I used for the premise section. What you claim "seems obvious to [me] after watching a trailer" was already added as a fact to this encyclopedia page. That's because it not something that just seemed "obvious" to me, the editor who added the source, or the other editors who agreed with its inclusion. It was the source itself that identified the young mutant being named Russell and it was the author of the source who came to the same "obvious" conclusion through the aforementioned trailer that the editor who added the source agreed with. It is an "obvious" conclusion that we all seem to take as correct, just like we take information provided in the first premise source - which is entirely based on sequences in a trailer - to be correct. If we didn't think it was correct, we wouldn't allow the source and the information it provides to be added to the article. So this takes me back to this point - if what I am doing is SYNTH, why is it not SYNTH for the cast section to do the same thing? If you think there should be a better source to identify that Russell is the name of the young mutant, I'm all for providing it, but other editors clearly believe the current source is fine as it is still used in the article. If this source can be used to identify Russell in one section, then it can be used to identify him by name in another. And this goes back to my point from the beginning for making the change: it is inconsistent to identify other characters in the premise section by name, but not Russell, especially when we have a source identifying him.

I understand the edit war issue and with the infobox on Deadpool, yes, I was the one who made the change. That's why I was asked to, and put up the talk page section for the article. However, on Deadpool 2, you were the one who removed Russell's name from the premise section without explanation. If you wish to discuss the infobox issue, the section has already been created on the talk page. I'll create a talk page section on Deadpool 2 if you maintain your opposition to Russell's name being in the infobox, but I think we both need to work on avoiding a non-BRD approach in the future. Bluerules (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of 1000 Corpses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Bassett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ordeal by Innocence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Armitage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bluerules. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pet Sematary, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources for the information that were used on the 1989 film's article. Bluerules (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing references! DonIago (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad to be of help. Bluerules (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beast Boy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gettysburg (1993 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gods and Generals (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Parts Per Billion a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I cannot move the page myself, so I will request a move. Bluerules (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well written edits. I still have concerns about bloated character descriptions but so far so good. -- 109.255.158.125 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree that they have become bloated, but we also need to make certain they accurately describe the characters in full. It's definitely a balancing act between keeping them as concise as possible and including all the important information. Bluerules (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with other peoples edits adding all that bloat to the section, Jack seems to take this all very seriously and either reverts or asks for citations all the time. I'm surprised to see him reverting to keep things for a change. He's strict but so long as we follow the rules he's not unreasonable. We do what we can. If there are specific points you feel are missing then bring them to the article Talk page. -- 109.79.69.130 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've decided to cut back the character descriptions further in the meantime. Hope this issue is resolved and we all come to an agreement on what the section should display. Bluerules (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 August 25#File:Why Women Kill, season 1 socialites.jpg. Jayab314 10:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll look into it. Bluerules (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently edited Titans (2018 TV series) and wrote "special appearance" is considered a main role. I totally agree and accept this. But if this is correct then changes need to be made to The Flash (2014 TV series) and Tom Felton needs to be added to the main cast section as he is credited as "special appearance" during the show's 3rd season. I've tried to edit it myself in the past but it constantly gets reverted. We had this same discussion with Matt Ryan for Legends of Tomorrow. Thankfully he is now listed as main cast.

Thank you for your message. If you were not planning on doing so already, a discussion on The Flash's talk page will likely be enough to move Tom Felton to main. I do not watch The Flash myself, but I checked the credits and noticed that like Titans, there is both a "special appearance" credit and a "special guest star" credit. That should justify Felton's inclusion in the main section because it is clearly stated if an individual with a "special" credit is a guest star and Felton is not identified as such. Bluerules (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the source for the Tamaranian name edit? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main source is at 21:43 in the episode "Ghosts"; Kory refers to the character as "Faddei" after he steals the jewelry. The following articles also provide this name:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

Bluerules (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sourcing. I think we need to be adding these sources when we specifically name the characters appearing, as they can be sourced. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and understood. I noticed that a source has already been added for Robbie Jones' character, but I'll add them for any new additions. Bluerules (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Little Women, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruby Miller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daisy Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inhuman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blockers (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Pie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Floronic Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Glover (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I happened to notice this edit. Per MOS:OVERLINK (bullet 3.3), please don't link "New York City", as it just creates work for other editors and moves the encyclopedia in the wrong direction per community consensus. The rationale, if it's not obvious, is that New York City is well enough known worldwide that a link is not justified. I've corrected that instance. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with removing the link to New York City in the lead, but I believe it should be retained in the infobox, where it was present before my edit. The infobox is intended to provide quick links to other articles. For example, the Donald Trump article doesn't link New York City in the lead, but there is a link in the infobox. Per this guideline, the link to Los Angeles should also be removed from the Michael Cimino article as it's also well enough known worldwide.

The infobox is intended to provide quick links to other articles. I find only two occurrences of link at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and neither supports that statement.

Funny you should cite the Trump article. I've been heavily involved at that article since 2016, and I'm familiar with the history of that link. Years ago a consensus was reached to code the birthplace field that way, and OVERLINK was not considered in that consensus. My recent proposal to amend the consensus per OVERLINK got almost no attention, so the consensus stands. I consider that case an anomaly. Anyway, I'm sure you could find thousands of cases where NYC is linked in infoboxes, since there is still a lot of work to be done to make the encyclopedia compliant with the guideline. I've been removing a few of those infobox links most days for months.

I have no objection to unlinking Los Angeles per OVERLINK (although you might get pushback from editors who don't think LA is as well-known as NYC), but that shouldn't be a prerequisite to unlinking NYC. I can't do everything. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Infobox states that one of the purposes of the infobox is "to improve navigation to other interrelated articles".

A key thing to note is that MOS:OVERLINK does not require these links to be removed from articles; rather, it is a recommendation for these links to be removed. It even notes that there are cases where the links are relevant to the article. In that regard, the links are relevant to the infobox because it summarizes details of the main article, which often have articles of their own, and links readers to related articles. It also helps prevent overlinking by already providing a link to the subjects in question - after all, the infobox is viewed separately from the main body of the article. This is likely why most infoboxes still include links to New York City when it's not linked anywhere else in the article. Even the example given of an infobox on the Help:Infobox article has a country linked, which OVERLINK opposes.

The link to Los Angeles on the Michael Cimino article was also added by myself, so I don't foresee any objection to its removal. One of the objectives of my edit was to add a degree of consistency to the article's lead, which was also missing links to Michigan State University and Yale University. With the OVERLINK guideline in mind, I find it most consistent to remove both the links to New York City and Los Angeles because they meet the well-known location criteria, while Michigan State and Yale should remain linked because they do not meet the criteria. Although I do believe that the infobox links should remain, which existed on the Cimino article prior to my edit, I see no major issues with keeping or removing them. Bluerules (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samara Weaving, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hawkes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chadwick Boseman 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.
Please read WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO -- to make changes to the lead, gain consensus on talk page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no WP:STATUSQUO on which lead is an improvement. You restored misleading information and removed important information without explanation. That must be corrected under any circumstance. Bluerules (talk) 18:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm curious about the status of the pages Titans (season 3) and Draft:Titans (season 3). You created the draft last month, then the article about three weeks later, and have sinced edited the draft since the article's creation. I'm wondering why there are two versions of the same article? -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, I was planning to create the article when season 3 aired because I wasn't certain if there wasn't enough cited information, which is why the draft contains unsourced information I'm expecting in the season. I decided after the extended FanDome panel that there was enough sourced information to create the article (with my unsourced predictions naturally removed). My main focus now is the actual article; the edits I've since made to the draft were for practice purposes because I realized I made careless mistakes (identifying season 3 as a 2019 series in the categories, having the wrong hyperlink for DC Universe) and wanted to be better at catching them. The draft isn't needed anymore and it can redirect to the main article, although I'd still like to fix any errors I've made in writing it. Bluerules (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. I'll leave the draft for you to decide to do with as you will. Just for a future note, season articles typically aren't created in the mainspace until filming has began (WP:TV uses WP:NFF for this, and while it does apply for films, we use the same concept for seasons), but I believe this article meets GNG, especially with the COVID-19-related delays. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you. If there's a season 4, I'll wait for filming to begin before I create the article. Bluerules (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this? You should start a discussion about it at Talk:Legend of the Seeker. Don't WP:Edit war. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exempt case from edit warring when the information being reverted is verifiably incorrect. The other editor merely misremembered the credit billing. Craig Parker was a guest star, not main cast, and that is required to be accurately reflected in the article. Bluerules (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning. Keep it up, and I will report you at the WP:Edit warring noticeboard. You do not have to violate WP:3RR to be reported or blocked. That revert of yours is not an exemption. You can wait until this is worked out on the talk page. And if you can't, the edit warring noticeboard is next. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This revert is an exemption because it is removing incorrect information and adding correct information. Incorrect information must be removed immediately. This did not need go to the talk page when all you had to do was watch a season 2 episode for yourself to confirm Craig Parker was not a series regular on Legend of the Seeker. Instead, you jumped to conclusions and restored incorrect information. Bluerules (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you restore incorrect information not out of good faith, your edits account to vandalism. Bluerules (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reported. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. Bluerules (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Bluerules, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Alivardi (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

You might not remember me, but we had a disagreement on Hunters (2020 TV series) at the beginning of the year. It was one of the most honest and sincerely policy-based debates I've had here, something which I found in my experience is pretty rare. Anyway, no hard feelings and keep up the good work.
Alivardi (talk) 09:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for message and your comments. Merry Christmas! Bluerules (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Myles Garrett, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mason Rudolph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You seem prone to committing numerous overt reversions of the Buffalo Bills article. This is against established Wikiquette and does not help to improve the article. Please remember the Wikipedia rule of Reverting Only When Necessary in the future and to not begin reversion wars. Thank you. Omnibus (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have made numerous overt reversions of the Buffalo Bills article, which have not helped to improve the article. You are repeating information in the lede, which unnecessarily bloats it. You are adding information not relevant to the subject of the lede, which unnecessarily bloats it. I have explained why it is superior to identify the Bills as the only AFC East team to not win the Super Bowl; that is an attribute specific to them and no other NFL team. You first attempted to remove this under the grounds of it being a "factoid that does not belong in a lede section", then replaced it with a factoid similar in nature, but not specific to the Bills and significantly longer. Please consider why edits are made and why information is removed when unnecessary. The lede was poorly written before I revised it and needs to remain punctual. Thank you. Bluerules (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. I am adding new content to the article, which you have reverted several times. I've not reverted new contributions to the article, only "reverting" overt reversions to your old and seemingly preferred version. I'm not sure when you first edited the lede but it is punctual enough without reverting to a strange factoid comparison with the "AFC East" instead of the relevant comparison group, which is either the entire AFC or even the entire NFL. See other articles like Cincinnati Bengals where teams which have not won a Super Bowl are "one of 12 in the NFL" not "the only team in the AFC East" not to have made the Super Bowl. In this case, Buffalo is one of the most successful teams at winning the AFC but one of the least successful at winning the Super Bowl. Both, not one, of these facts needs to be relayed for maximum information conveyance in the lede.

I do appreciate your response here before trying to just revert back to your preferred version again, but it seems you did immediately revert again afterward. Please take this to the Talk page so we can continue working on my revisions before you try to just delete them all again. Omnibus (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the new content you've added, while in good faith, affects the punctuality of the lede. We can agree that there needs to be reference to the Bills not having a Super Bowl title, but it is best to narrow this factoid down to more specific factoids. For example, the Detroit Lions article doesn't just specify that they're one of four teams not to reach the Super Bowl; it specifies that they are the oldest, the only NFC team, and the only one operational throughout the Super Bowl era not to appear. The Houston Texans article specifies "they are the only franchise to have never appeared in a conference championship game". In both of these cases, the teams are not identified as one of the teams who never won a Super Bowl, one of the teams who never won a Super Bowl in their conference, or even one of the four teams that never appeared in the Super Bowl. They are identified by the one, specific factoid that is exclusive by them. That makes the lede unique and establishes what makes the team unique. Buffalo may be one of the most successful teams at winning the AFC and that is reflected in the lede by mentioning their periods of postseason contention and four consecutive Super Bowl appearances. However, they are not merely one of seven AFC teams to not win the Super Bowl - they are the only AFC East team not to do so. This is not a strange factoid, but a factoid that applies exclusively to them. If they win Super Bowl LV, the lede will be edited accordingly. And if they reach Super Bowl LV, but lose to the Packers or Buccaneers, the lede will note that they have the most Super Bowl losses without a win. That will be another distinguishing factoid (although personally, they're the remaining team I'd like to see win).

I will gladly take this to the talk page and hope we can come to an understanding of why changes are being made to the lede. Bluerules (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I tried to reason with you, but you've now violated a bright-line rule on Wikipedia called the three-revert rule. I will give you the opportunity to self-revert your latest reversion before further action may be taken. Omnibus (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake."

The reversions have been made on both of our ends. If you wish to take this to the talk page, I am happy to have a conversation there.

In the case of 3RR, the article goes back to the earliest reversion before any changes and that includes the AFC East factoid in the lede. Bluerules (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will report it. And that's not true, editing an article is not reverting it. Omnibus (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edits from the beginning. I am willing to compromise and work together on both of our edits, but that requires cooperation from both of us. I have re-added your AFC team factoid out of good faith and I expect the same consideration in turn. Bluerules (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not true: I edited the article and you reverted my edits. I really only reversed those reverts. You may be confusing me with earlier editor(s) of this article — I just started editing it heavily in the past week. But thank you, I much appreciate your willingness to work with me on this article and will not report a 3RR violation. I may also start a discussion on the Talk page soon on how we might further improve the article, so please watch for that! Omnibus (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you made was a reversion of my edit, which had identified the Bills as the only AFC East team to not win a Super Bowl. I guess you could say I can be defensive over my contributions, haha, but I prefer to have articles reflect the contributions and compromise of all editors. My main goal here is to make the article easily editable in the situation where the Bills a Super Bowl, so as long as we have a short reference to them being a non-Super Bowl winner, I am satisfied with the current state of the article. We'll find out in the next few weeks if they'll remain winless in the Super Bowl or not and make any necessary changes by then. Bluerules (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 07:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. — Newslinger talk 07:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was no actual National Championship Game then - the AP and the Coaches polls still voted their own national championships at the end of the year (1997 was the last year before the BCS into play, which then of course gave way to the current College Football Playoff format we have today).

But regardless, he still has a ring, and thus it's lede worthy..an NCAA National Championship ain't chopped liver.

Vjmlhds (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's less than chopped liver compared to his NFL accolades. A record seven Super Bowls as a starter vs. being on a college team that won a championship without his involvement? The lede is long enough and has all of his major accomplishments. Something trivial that doesn't speak to his greatness (again, he had no part in that) isn't lede worthy. Plus, it will confuse readers as to why he was selected so low in the draft. Bluerules (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was on the team, he has the ring, period, full stop, end of story. It is a major accomplishment for anybody regardless of anything else. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a major accomplishment if he had no actual part of it. It is a blip in the main body for this reason. This edit will only confuse readers. Bluerules (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An NCAA National Chamionship IS a major accomplishment, period. And how would saying someone won a national title confuse readers? That is a subjective opinion. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't when he didn't play. It will confuse readers that a National Championship winner was selected so low in the draft - because it's a fact that he didn't play in the championship, explaining the fact that he wasn't a highly regarded prospect, and therefore a low draft pick. Bluerules (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was no championship game back then...the AP and coaches did their polls at the end of the year to decide the champions (in fact in 1997 there were 2 national champions...the AP chose Michigan, and the coaches picked Nebraska), so there was no championship game to be played in anyway. You gotta cool it - a quick mention of winning a national title in the lede doesn't put undue weight on anything, it is merely listing a collegiate accomplishment - which happens to be the biggest one there is. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cool trying to force in information that no other editors felt was necessary for a reason. By saying "there was no championship game back then", you're further demonstrating why this isn't lede-worthy. It's undue weight to add something barely mentioned in the article's body into the lede. The lede is long enough and doesn't need events that don't speak to Brady's accolades. Bluerules (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quick mention that he has a ring...how is that undue weight? you say a lot of words, but they have no meaning. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is less than a quick mention of it in the body of the article. That is why it is undue weight. You are trying to add contradictory information and that is a fact. Bluerules (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be doing the same type of thing (trivial lede changes) on other football players of note, like with Randall Cunningham. Not only is your editing unconstructive, it's destructive to some degree. 72.174.131.123 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's destructive is stalking someone's talk page and butting into a conversation from over a year ago. Cunningham being third in quarterback rushing yards is not trivial and thinking it shouldn't be included because it's "subject to change" is completely misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Bluerules (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is mentioning Brady has a National Championship ring "contradictory" to anything? Again, you are making zero sense. Vjmlhds (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the fact that he was a low draft pick. That is the contradiction. If you are not going to listen to my reasons, there is no point in having a discussion. Bluerules (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tom Brady. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There is no reason not to mention Brady's National Title in college. Regardless of HOW he got the ring, he HAS the ring, and the accolade in and of itself is lede worthy, so please stop Vjmlhds 04:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If it was "lede worthy", why wasn't it in earlier versions of the article? Because it's not and the fact that it's barely touched upon in the article makes this clear. It is undue weight that will confuse readers. Bluerules (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intentionally revert my edit? If so, please explain -- it was intended to improve the grammar, by adding "that" to "a series of controversial social-media posts she made." Gershonmk (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid having multiple "that"s in the same sentence, which can make sentences look awkward. It's not always necessary to include "that", if the sentence doesn't lose its meaning without it - but to answer your question, it was not an intentional revert, which is why there was no revert tag. My edit had more changes than just removing one "that". Bluerules (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't necessary for meaning but it is for proper grammar. I'd like to replace it if you don't object. Gershonmk (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor thing from bigger edits I was working on, so I don't have a huge stance on whether or not a second "that" is included. I don't see any grammar issues either - "that" can be excluded if there's no change in meaning - but like I said, it's a minor thing. It could be worth checking with other editors to see how they feel on the sentence's grammar, although given that it's only one word, I don't know how much of a response that would generate. Bluerules (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael J. Fox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Secret of My Success.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's a small point, but following your otherwise-sound edits to Jon Jones, I noticed that you had removed a correct 's. The MoS (MOS:POSS) is unambiguous:

For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Glass's books, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound, when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus).

Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I'll keep that in mind for future edits. Bluerules (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. Cheers.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you're looking for more work on Jones's page. Bluerules (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See his talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Bluerules (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Some Dude From North Carolina. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Yellowjackets (TV series), 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the series to air unless I can find a source earlier. Bluerules (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When adding wikilinks, see WP:NOTBROKEN (ex. [[body double]]s instead of [[body double|body doubles]]). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my edit, that was a copy-paste from a previous editor. Bluerules (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write "body doubles" instead of "body doubles". I was copying text that another editor added. Bluerules (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you like to deliberate reasons why you changed the article description in “Smoke (Mortal Kombat)” to “Mortal Kombat character” which only repeats the MK words of the title and gives out a very generic title, “character”, instead of something more specific e.g. “fictive assassin”? The description you reverted was “Fictive demonic Lin Kuei assassin” which fit the forty letter limit well. You should aim to be as specific as possible in your description within the set boundaries. Thank you for your editing nonetheless. Now correct me if I am wrong. ToniTurunen (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When we are writing about fictional characters, we need a clear separation between real world information and fictional in-universe information. The current short description of Smoke focuses on only the most important information, the real world information. It is specified that he is a character from a specific franchise. Fictional in-universe information comes afterwards once readers are identified of the subject's fictional status. Even by calling Smoke "fictive", the line has become blurred between real world and in-universe information because the short description now has in-universe information. Furthermore, "Fictive demonic Lin Kuei assassin" is not an accurate summary of the character when he has not been demonic or a Lin Kuei assassin in all of his appearances (in fact, he's never been both at the same time), and the average reader will not know what the "Lin Kuei" is. And to top it off, this description is missing the most important information of all - he's a character from Mortal Kombat. This article exists not because he's a "Fictive demonic Lin Kuei assassin", but because he's a Mortal Kombat character. The fictional franchise that a character comes from must be included in the short description. Hope that helps. Bluerules (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited House of the Dead (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heart of America.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[5] AnyDosMilVint (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am always aware. Bluerules (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerules,

Thanks for cleaning up the lede on Brandon Lee's article. However, they are two mistakes you made. The "Kung Fu" spin-offs are related to the 70s show since in the television film Carradine returns to the title role where he plays his son, and in the pilot he plays the descendant of the Carradine character.

Also only in Rapid Fire, is the only film where his acting abilities were noticed by critics not Showdown in Little Tokyo.

Peace.Filmman3000 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just for clarification, I meant that the two spin-offs were unrelated, not that they were unrelated to the original series. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Bluerules (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to turn this article into a GAN, I do need teammates to complete it. Would you like to join?Filmman3000 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am interested in helping. Bluerules (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason that you moved Aldis Hodge's name to the bottom of the info box on the original Leverage_(American_TV_series) page? I've been looking at it for 15 minutes, just trying to figure out what the original reasoning was, and couldn't come up with anything. So, I figured asking the question would be faster. Thanks- CleverTitania (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's last on the infobox because he's billed last in the title credits. The infobox follows the onscreen credits. Bluerules (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had not realized that, but pulled up the infobox template and see both that and how new permanent cast members are to be added. Thanks for explaining. CleverTitania (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As you probably noticed, Hodge receives "and" billing. Bluerules (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought it up - is it generally treated as an "and" billing if they are at the end of the main cast credits, even if there is no actual "and" in the cards? Because he's not an "and" in the original series - at least not in the 5 season premieres. CleverTitania (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, although even if an actor does receive "and" billing, it's not reflected in the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Suicide Squad (film) 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.
WP:BRD. You made a bold edit and were reverted. You don't make the same edit again. You discuss. JOEBRO64 02:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You follow WP:STATUSQUO. I followed it when the older cast section was restored. You should follow it when an older plot section is restored. Bluerules (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Titans (season 3), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Please read WP:CITELEAD, which dictates that citations are not required for the lede if the information is sourced in the body of the article. And please create an individual section if you are going to write a talk page message instead of putting it at the top of the page. Bluerules (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume ownership of articles, as you did at Titans (season 3), you may be blocked from editing. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy.Please self-revert your latest edit warring salvo and discuss why you think this article should be different than other articles and diverge from common sense. Two actors are playing two roles in a bulleted list, each one should have its own bullet, it's common sense. Why not just make a bullet to list every single actor then? JesseRafe (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:STATUSQUO, which requires the original revision to be maintained if there is a dispute. And please avoid violating WP:AOBF and WP:NPA. These are minor characters who are connected to each other. It saves room and improves the article's readability by combining them. Bluerules (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mac beat out more then just cam u casual 2600:8803:1C15:F700:F5A4:87AA:2B01:263B (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyer is not considered a starter. Try harder. Bluerules (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry about reverting the Urban Meyer intro. You are right in your explanation though. The reason the reversion happened was I was in the midst of updating URLs in the references, rescuing where necessary, and because it was a good handful of URLs, I didn’t want to go through applying them all a second time. I figured restoring the added content lost in my override was right enough, I should’ve been more thorough in getting what was changed where it should be.--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. It's an easy mistake to make and I'm glad we were able to fix it. Bluerules (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerules,

Thanks for taking care of the Justin Fields page. I've got a couple/few questions. Why were asterisks removed from his 2021 stats? It's a fact that he currently leads the NFL in fumbles and being sacked. Is it because it's mid-season and those numbers might change? Is it because that information needs a citation from the Trib or Sun Times? If so, I could provide that. But what if Fields ends the season with the most fumbles and sacks? Is that information something that would be removed or could it stay? At this point we don't have enough data to project whether Fields will be a total bust, a hall of fame QB, or something in between. But I am getting the impression that the honeymoon is starting to wear off for some local sports writers, who have also pointed out his league leading sacks and fumbles.

Respectfully, Wmh1978 (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC)WMH1978[reply]

@Wmh1978: - We generally wait until the season is over to identify if a player led the NFL in a statistical category because another player may surpass those statistics. If Fields ends the season with the most fumbles and sacks, then yes, that would be retained. It would be marked by adding a background color to the table - refer to how the Daniel Jones article identifies him having the most fumbles in 2019:

Legend
	Led the league
Bold	Career Best

Year	Team	Games				Passing								Rushing				Sacks		Fumbles
		GP	GS	W	L	Comp	Att	Pct	Yards	Avg	TD	Int	Rtg	Att	Yds	Avg	TD	Sck	SckY	Fum	Lost
2019	NYG	13	12	3	9	284	459	61.9	3,027	6.6	24	12	87.7	45	279	6.2	2	38	295	18	11
2020	NYG	14	14	5	9	280	448	62.5	2,943	6.6	11	10	80.4	65	423	6.5	1	45	286	11	6
2021	NYG	9	9	3	6	190	293	64.8	2,059	7	8	5	87.4	50	258	5.2	2	19	136	7	3
Total		36	35	11	24	754	1200	62.8	8,029	6.7	43	27	84.9	160	960	6	5	102	717	36	20

Thank you for your message. Hope this helps. Bluerules (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerules: - Thanks for that information, Bluerules! It makes total sense. Thanks again. Respectfully, Wmh1978 (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)-Wmh1978[reply]

No problem. I've been interested in the careers of the five first-round rookies from the 2021 Draft and hope we'll be able to make their articles well-written. Bluerules (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to apologize for the reversion on Brian Flores. I think the dates in the beginning was what I was referring to, the way you just corrected it looks much better anyway. I'll be sure to double check these things before editing openings in the future. Thanks and cheers! Spf121188 (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I apologize for neglecting to remove the years in my edit and I'm glad we were able to improve the page. Bluerules (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just saw your change on the Rian Johnson article and looked briefly at your recent edit history... you really need to explain changes more consistently. Even if the edit is correct and in good faith it should be explained. That will lead to less edit conflicts. Thanks and happy editing. Nemov (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, I explain changes that need to be explained. That way, the more important edits have more attention brought to them and are identified as such. I don't object to providing an explanation for all edits, but I am of the stance that not all need to be explained. Bluerules (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your stance is downright unhelpful – what happened at this article could easily have been avoided if you just explained what you were doing in the first place. I agree with Nemov – please actually use your edit summaries to explain what you are doing. Other editors cannot read your mind, and justify or explaining your edits is just good practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time we've had a conflict because you didn't know the title credits. If you are monitoring television articles, it is more unhelpful to be unaware of important information. Unclear edits are one issue, but if you were aware of the credits order as you implied, what happened would have been avoided. And when you don't know the credits order, checking the order instead of immediately undoing the edit is a better practice. Bluerules (talk) 05:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Devonta Smith belongs on the 2021 NFL Draft page. He broke a franchise record for rookie receiving yards and helped bring a bottom 5 team last year to the playoffs.

Curtis “The Peacemaker” LaFrayne — Preceding unsigned comment added by CurtisLaFrayne (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a sockpuppet of @Rodneyarchambault:, you have violated another rule. Bluerules (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You removed the info on starting time for Super Bowl LVI, justifying the removal with the comment "Don't need this detail." It's rather difficult to understand how one could casually dismiss like that the starting time of what is arguably the most popular final in pro-team sports in the world. Care to elaborate wherefrom comes your opinion? -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. The date is important for historical reference, the time is a detail that informs viewers when to tune in, but isn't important enough to include in the lead. And it makes the second sentence unnecessarily long. Bluerules (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Hi and continued appreciation from Dfoofnik -- one of the "200K+ edits" category of users since Wiki's inception and a fan since before the AFL-NFL merger...which betrays how old I have gotten on Wikipedia) - We have always found the LOCAL TIME for the start of any Super Bowl, mentioned here in the infobox, is always relevant since it was not ALWAYS a Prime Time event. The TV Ratings for each game have been noted and shifts in its schedule can (and have) had an impact on that result. Perhaps that is one of the many incalculables that the info was designed to illustrate. While I agree it may not be appropriate in the lead paragraphs, a lower section devoted to such historical effect (Gnome?) could be illuminating. Cheers. 2600:8807:4809:E100:E11A:669B:5775:DB7C (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (dfoofnik not signed in)[reply]

The ratings are noted because like the date, there's historic significance and a comparison to be made with other Super Bowls. The time is more beneficial to those wanting to tune into the game, as opposed to future readers learning about a Super Bowl they didn't experience. I don't have issue with the time being included in the infobox or body - my main qualm was towards it being in the lead, where it lacks the weight to be there. The best way to make a case for mentioning the time would be if there was a scheduling change, just like how this Super Bowl is being played a week later. Bluerules (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BR, why all this controversy on your pg. Please don't do this on the SB pg, thanks.Justanother2 (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you make unnecessary and poorly-written edits, you will be reverted. Do not use this page for personal attacks or you will be reported. Bluerules (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understand you could be wrong. You're inappropriate, that's not a personal attack.Justanother2 (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely a personal attack and now you're also veering into edit warring. I was correct in this situation and I'm correct in the situations you're causing problems over. The sentence you're trying to remove on the Super Bowl LVI article clearly says Stafford led the appearance, not the appearance led Stafford, the Rams, or anything else. Your sentences are poorly-written, with bad grammar and typos. The information you're trying to restore on Boselli's article is outdated. To call a HoF inductee one of the best players not inducted is contradictory. Please recognize why your edits are being reverted. Bluerules (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your exact phrasing "is appearance was led by the acquisition" which in no way is a qb led his team to an appearance. When did a negotiation ever conduct an event? Maybe you meant inquisition? This is not how to edit.Justanother2 (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An admin even understood the relevance of Tony Boselli waiting so long; they said merely source it well. I hadn't gotten to re-writing yet.Justanother2 (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, my exact phrasing is "the Rams' fifth appearance was led by the acquisition of veteran quarterback Matthew Stafford", which is exactly saying a newly-acquired quarterback led his team to an appearance. The subject of that sentence is not "a negotiation"; it's the individual acquired through the negotiation, Stafford. Continually misunderstanding grammar and taking words out of context is not how to edit.

Mentioning that Boselli waited several years to be inducted is one thing; restoring out of date information that implies he hasn't been inducted is another. Your edit falls into the latter category. You should have written new information about him being considered instead of hitting revert and creating a contradiction. Bluerules (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As unbeliveable as it is I may be right. Already said I will rewrite Boselli. You left out a small word like to which makes a large difference and the acquisition part is just wrong as well as clunky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanother2 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's unbelievable is you don't understand why you're being reverted. You should have re-written Boselli's article without restoring outdated information. There was nothing left out and saying "acquisition" (which is also on the Super Bowl LV lead) is correct and isn't any less clunky than breaking up a perfectly fine sentence. Bluerules (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerules, is it time to report this behavior? Justanother2 is also disrupting Super Bowl LVI halftime show. What would be the best place to report? Back Bay Barry (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He should be reported. Bluerules (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading about reporting bad behavior and the options are dizzying. There's edit warring, Administrator intervention against vandalism, Dispute resolution noticeboard, and that's just the first three I copied and pasted. There's a lot of places to report people. which one? Back Bay Barry (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Back Bay Barry: - I believe it's Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Bluerules (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. BBB, you're in Australia? Do you see how not using the word to makes a big difference.Justanother2 (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC) BBB, if I show you the source for the halftime show would you pay attention?Justanother2 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to include these sources before other editors object to them - that's how you prevent conflict. Bluerules (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 February 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Super Bowl LVI, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giving credit on behalf of the posting admin. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

could you please refer to the response i left on the malcolm butler talk page regarding whether we should refer to him as former vs free agent. I feel that there has been more than enough reason to call him a free agent Bears247 (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we were able to resolve this. Bluerules (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modern display of the Confederate battle flag. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. The WP rules I cited about status quo and missing consensus are clear enough. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jamie collins, you may be blocked from editing. You need to learn the styling of NFL articles, we don’t establish Joining the NFL, it’s well known, to take up a change in style you’d have to go to the nfl Wiki project and have a discussion, I’ve been editing NFL articles for years and creating them, joining the nfl is not part of any article. TheKinkdomMan talk 12:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn the rules of Wikipedia. What you are claiming is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. There is no policy for how to write the leads of articles for NFL players. You also engaged in an edit war, failed to create a talk page section, and didn't even make a new section on this page to push your misunderstanding of Wikipedia's rules. NFL needs to be spelled out on first reference, plain and simple. Bluerules (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong the article is structured a certain way we don’t say joined the NFL you don’t know the rules apparently, learn the structure it’s not hard to figure out, I’ve been doing this for years check the structure of every NFL article it doesn’t say joining the NFL, it’s well established that’s why we don’t say it TheKinkdomMan talk 12:19, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, you are still arguing WP:OTHERSTUFF. There is no rule for the "structure". There is a very clear rule that you cannot structure an article based solely on how other articles are written. It doesn't matter what other articles say, it matters that the article isn't missing any vital information and you are removing vital information because you don't know the rules. Bluerules (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree since we aren’t gonna come up with a solution I suggest we leave each other alone TheKinkdomMan talk 15:00, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would ask if you stop replying to me. Bluerules (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will if you come clean about the talk page I created cause one thing I’m not is a liar I’m not saying you are however I did catch a few today maybe you were caught up in the moment but that’s besides the point, you could of just messaged me like this after I sent the warning message, I was awaiting a reply, however let me tell you this I ain’t against change however when it comes to the format and structure of the NFL Bio pages I stick to what’s been done over and over again, yes change could happen but all I’m saying is the guideline sticks to that format, I just want you to understand that your inserting something that is well established and over killing the article, what your trying to insert is in the pro career tab worded differently, but like I said it’s well established through out the articles who they are and the NFL just because it isn’t there right away doesn’t mean it’s not there, the lead is basic info TheKinkdomMan talk 15:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing for me to "come clean about". You are supposed to create the talk page section on the disputed article, not on another article. You have been calling me a liar this whole time and providing zero evidence for it. The talk page section was supposed to be on the Jamie Collins article, not anywhere else, plain and simple. You're free to stick what's done with the format and structure of NFL bio pages, but you are not permitted to use that as an argument for keeping a page a certain way. You need to understand this and you need to understand what you insist on following is a flat-out recommendation that is not required to be followed. The lead being "basic info" is exactly why NFL needs to be spelled out. Other editors agree with me. It's necessary information. Bluerules (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If editors agreed with you then it would have changed and you asked me for evidence and I gave it to you, and first off when you attack someone first it’s a retaliation, and it’s not necessary info when it’s already in the article, you just don’t join the NFL or any Pro sports team, it’s indicated through out the article, if other editors agree with you then let’s see it otherwise it’s overkill and going by not just what I think but many other Article creators have done is the standard like I said change can happen but until that time and it’s been going around then fine but until then I see no need for that format when no one else does it, not one other article is formatted the way your trying to do it, however I want to see the other editors chime in TheKinkdomMan talk 15:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it did change. You were reverted and C.Fred made another edit that kept NFL spelled out in the lead. It is necessary information to spell out NFL when it's referenced and it needs to be spelled out on first reference to prevent confusion over what "NFL" stands for. Collins did join the NFL. He's an NFL player. That's established throughout the article. Again, you were reverted, C.Fred kept NFL spelled out, and another editor said he supported it being spelled out in another talk page section. This is not a "let's see" situation; this is what actually happened. And while you may not like it, you still cannot defend your edits based solely on how other articles are formatted. You have to focus on the article in question and nothing else - and once again, the editors have shown they agree with NFL being spelled out. Bluerules (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of evidence from what I see, C Fred didn’t edit the page until after the edit war, and I still don’t see any editors agreeing with you TheKinkdomMan talk 15:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted by another editor. C.Fred agreed that NFL should be spelled out, hence why kept that in his edit and when he made his edit has no relevance. You just chose not to see what you don't want to see. Bluerules (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So are we done bitching and moaning like children, hope so cause it’s not getting us anywhere besides stressed out like I said I’m going to agree to disagree and leave it as this, I won’t reply back if you don’t reply back we leave each other alone and go on with our lives it’s not that hard TheKinkdomMan talk 16:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be done until you stop with the ad hominem and false accusations against me. You say it's not hard to leave me alone, but you refuse to stop replying when you see another reply from me. Bluerules (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to leave me alone now I’m involving the police for harassment TheKinkdomMan talk |

That's not how Wikipedia works. Bluerules (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are gonna stop or I contact the police you are not getting the last word TheKinkdomMan talk 19:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening me is a definite violation of Wikipedia policy. Bluerules (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a threat I’ve already contacted the police TheKinkdomMan talk 19:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a threat and you really should stop threatening me because I'm not going to be intimidated by you. Bluerules (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It really is laughable that they think just because of follow through the threat was never made in the first place CreecregofLife (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just glad it seems to be over. Bluerules (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least, between you and them. They seemed to still be pleading +24 from this comment, which is quite the thing CreecregofLife (talk) 05:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've noticed. That's for the admins to decide. Bluerules (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not pleading when I’m unblocked, I’m not here for drama I’m here to have a civil conversation like I’ve should of done TheKinkdomMan talk 17:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your attention towards me, not other editors. Bluerules (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just want to apologize I was in the wrong and You didn’t deserve the treatment I gave you and I wanted to say I’m willing to work out our differences in the future if we ever have another conflict TheKinkdomMan talk 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, thank you. Bluerules (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome, i don’t plan on arguing or threatening anyone again and I am sorry for my behavior and my actions but I can say I did not file any police report only called for advice when I said police, and I don’t want you or anyone to feel intimidated again, I am sorry and I promise it won’t happen again TheKinkdomMan talk 20:21, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. Hope we can work constructively on improving the wiki. Bluerules (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same but again I do apologize for my behavior it wasn’t called for when I disagreed with your edits I should of done the right thing and talk to you about it TheKinkdomMan talk 14:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, much appreciated. Bluerules (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish language announcers WERE USA announcers. This is relevant to the article and announced in the US. Wikieditor1222 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. We only focus on the primary English-language broadcast in the infobox. You cannot bloat the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I'm Kire1975. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Matt Araiza, 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. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Please do not add or change content, as you did at Matt Araiza, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Please stop your disruptive editing.
• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Araiza, you may be blocked from editing. Kire1975 (talk) 02:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the sexual assault article: "Sexual assault is an act in which one intentionally sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will. It is a form of sexual violence, which includes child sexual abuse, groping, rape (forced vaginal, anal, or oral penetration or a drug facilitated sexual assault), or the torture of the person in a sexual manner."

I fail to see how there isn't a source for Araiza being accused of sexual assault when rape is sexual assault. Keep the article as formal as possible. Bluerules (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for using the European format for scores in articles about American athletes? In keeping with MOS:ENGVAR, scores should always be expressed with the winning score first in these articles. —C.Fred (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with European / American format. Note that the scores aren't formatted based on winning or losing; they're formatted based on the subject's team. This is about the subject of the article. The article is about the player and we therefore format the scores based on them. Bluerules (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your guideline that states that we use such a stilted format? —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "subject-opponent" stilted and "winner-loser" not? Where is your guideline? MOS:ENGVAR does not apply here because the scores are not formatted based on language. They are formatted based on who the subject of the article is. Bluerules (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Trey Lance, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. The article is not in standard American English, as the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football demonstrates. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "American English". This is about who the subject of the article is. If all of the scores had the loser first, that would be the issue, but that's not the case. Bluerules (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In American English, the winner's score comes first, regardless of whether the subject of the article won or lost. Ergo, this article is not in American English: it is in your peculiar perception of how English should be. —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. If the article is about one side, that one side is the priority. And when that one side is the priority, we focus on that side. Bluerules (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the consensus about this in WP:WikiProject NFL? I don't see any talk page discussion about this or any guidance in the project style guide. —C.Fred (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_20#Proposal:_remove_"is_a_free_agent"_from_player_article_leads

Six editors who chimed in all supported removing "is a free agent" from the lead. Bluerules (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to give you a template warning for blanking when I realised that you have been here since 2007 and so WP:DTR applies. Nonetheless, I think you are making a mistake here. Please reconsider the value of the content that you wish to remove and, if you still believe that it is duplicative or unnecessary, make a proposal on the article's talk page. Please don't let this become an edit war. DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's unfortunate you could not see how this content is repetitive and poorly written and that you would not let the older version stand before entering a discussion. Bluerules (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kiwi Farms, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. OK. That's enough! This is NOT the Status Quo version. DanielRigal (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kiwi Farms. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for an edit war block? You've already essentially violated 3RR on a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. I recommend a self-revert and a trip to the talk page. Another revert will be a block, and it will be long given your edit war history. -- ferret (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerules you've just made your fifth revert, in the last twelve hours. I urge you to self-revert this edit immediately, and take heed of the warnings in this section. Then continue to engage on the talk page as you now appear to be doing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why WP:STATUSQUO suddenly doesn't apply when certain editors don't want it to apply. The content I removed has been there for only been about a week. I am willing to compromise and keep the older content, which is the primary focus of the dispute, but under Wikipedia guidelines, the newer revision should not be present until the dispute is resolved. Bluerules (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STATUSQUO is an essay. It is not a guideline, it is not policy, and it is NOT an exception to 3RR. -- ferret (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is still advice we are supposed to follow. When another editor brought it up during our Gardner Minshew dispute, I let it stand. Others chose not to give me the same courtesy. Bluerules (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked others to respect WP:STATUSQUO before I set up the topic and others have refused. It's unfortunate, but not entirely unexpected. Bluerules (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STATUSQUO is an essay and not an exception to 3RR. Please revert your last edit, which puts you past 5RR. I'm trying to give you a chance here. -- ferret (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content that was present for just about a week and wasn't the main issue at hand. I was willing to be flexible, especially given what I've been through today, but that's not how other want to play. Bluerules (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go read WP:3RR again? This issue has been ongoing throughout your editing career. Sincere advice: If you are blocked for edit warring again, it's very likely to be an indefinite block. -- ferret (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why even have WP:STATUSQUO if it's just going to be arbitrarily thrown around? If I was making the newer edit, I would have let the older version stand if I was reverted. I was making a topic under the assumption that the older version would have been retained while we resolved the dispute. You want to come at me the day my father died and act like edit warring doesn't become an ongoing issue for most longtime editors, go ahead, but I've been trying my damndest for the past several years to work towards compromises and respect the consensus. All I asked for was the older revision to be used and if the consensus was against me, I wouldn't have restored it. But I think it's reasonable to at least let a week-old revision be removed if it's under dispute. You think that's unreasonable, so be it. Bluerules (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak to any past disputes or why other editors held STATUSQUO over you despite it being simply advice/essay. It may even be GOOD advice, but that's irrelevant. All I can do is try to emphasize to you that 3RR has no such allowances. It has very specific exemptions, and none of those were the case here. I'm not coming at you (I'm actually being rather lenient, in my view), and I certainly am not doing so out of any motivation about your father dying today. That is very unfortunate, and you have my condolences. However, and again this is sincere advice: With such a personal grief hanging over you, this is perhaps not the day to be editing controversial topics. Other editors don't know what's going on in your life, and even if they do, it doesn't mean you can violate policies. -- ferret (talk) 00:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry the dispute got to the point that it did. I just did not appreciate the "issue has been ongoing throughout (my) editing career" comment when all of my past disputes ended amicably. In those cases, STATUSQUO was respected and the older versions stood while there was a dispute. If the consensus opposed my viewpoint, I did not oppose the consensus and edited based on the consensus. Here, the other editors were not outright dismissing STATUSQUO, but insisting it applied more to the new version. That's not how it works. Even if STATUSQUO is not an explicit exception to 3RR, I maintain respecting it is a sign of being willing to end a dispute. I would have not reverted back if my edits were the newer version and I would appreciated the same courtesy from other editors, as I would have done for them. Bluerules (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Issue has been ongoing" was a reference to the fact you have regular warnings from various editors for edit warring. I'm glad those disputes ended amicably, but you should not be editing in such a fashion that you keep getting such warnings in the first place. I've been editing since 2007, have nearly 85,000 edits, and don't even remember the last time I received a warning or notice about edit warring. Everyone gets hit by one now and then, but your talk page is full of them. This is something you need to consider. That they get resolved satisfactorily is great. But you need to ask: Why is my editing results in warnings? -- ferret (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are not demonstrative of actual edit warring and getting one or two this year is not "regular". These conflicts, unfortunately, are bound to happen for regular users who edit frequently.

Any recent conflicts are over what qualifies as STATUSQUO. I believe in respecting the older version and would not revert back if my version was newer. If other editors don't respect that, fine, but I maintain that is not a proper practice in resolving a dispute. Bluerules (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd be better served by quoting WP:BRD, rather than STATUSQUO. BRD is also, technically, an essay, but is far more strongly accepted I think, and has a degree of the same vibe. But, BRD also doesn't excuse 3RR. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I understand your point is 3RR trumps these essays, regardless of the situation. I just think it's a basic courtesy to let the older version stand in a dispute; if the newer version is preferred, it will eventually be reinstated. Bluerules (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said I would discuss it with you on the talk page once the older revision was allowed to stand. You declined. Bluerules (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said a sentence should not begin with the same word as the one with which the previous sentence ended. You should make two sentences from one if there's a reason. When articles talk about eligibility they are consistent with how references are made.Extraordinary2 (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid reason to make two sentences. His amateur career can be summed up into one sentence - we're not supposed to directly copy references. And having two consecutive sentences beginning with "He" is repetitive. Bluerules (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I could show you how many errors and where.Extraordinary2 (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't. Bluerules (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For good reason, you get into conflicts. How about you explain your pov or side and then I will illustrate both how you aren't using the Wikipedia principles correctly or editing standards.Extraordinary2 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason to not explain your viewpoint. I already explained it is more concise to keep his amateur career in one sentence. Your "consistent with how references are made" argument is not using the Wikipedia principles correctly or editing standards because you use references to support information - you don't copy references. Bluerules (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's begin with some pointers. I don't know if you have been to college and it's not that relevant... One, your writing style tends to be clunky, a bit stilted, and unclear. Two, while glorious and lengthy paragraphs are sometimes found in a novel, this site is not that type of writing. Three, it's system wide a problem how editors on here are using language which is nowhere else online or in print. You're creating your own terms and phrases. Four, short sentences while not necessarily desirable are at times necessary to avoid said clunkiness. Case in point, you used the faulty phrase "use up eligibility". I looked and could not find anywhere in the vast internet where someone uses up their 5 or 6 (in the case of covid era players from the one season affected) years. Also as said you are getting into not just discussions but conflicts. Everyone else is not wrong.Extraordinary2 (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you do not "respect the older version." There are errors on here. If found you fix them.Extraordinary2 (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do respect the older version if there is a conflict. One version has to remain during a conflict and the older version is the WP:STATUSQUO. You enact changes through discussion and consensus, which you have not been willing to do. You have not demonstrated the "errors". If there are no errors, they don't need to be fixed. Bluerules (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After purporting that I'm not "using the Wikipedia principles correctly or editing standards", you begin with a personal attack. You criticize my writing style as "clunky, a bit stilted, and unclear" and allege I'm "creating [my] own terms and phrases", but fail to elaborate on both points, rendering both allegations moot. Going off about how "glorious and lengthy paragraphs" aren't suited for Wikipedia has zero relevance to this discussion because we're talking about a single sentence here - a sentence in a paragraph, by the way, that you expanded by increasing the amount of sentences. You may not like the language used on here, but if the consensus supports the language and the language is found to be best for the article, you have to respect the consensus. Your argument for shorter sentences avoiding "clunkiness" falls flat as a strawman. The sentence does not say "use up eligibility" - it says "used eligibility". And that's exactly what Zappe did. He used his last year of eligibility at Western Kentucky. No matter how much research you purport to have done, it is a fact that Zappe used his last year of eligibility at Western Kentucky. And you conclude your "pointers" with another personal allegation against me, but stalking my talk page has been a trend here. Purporting "everyone else is not wrong" does not make you right. Bluerules (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The language you pick is out of line. Instead of reverting Mac Jones for example defend what you think is right and that I have been changing. As long as you have been on the site you still get into conflicts and accuse people of attacking you. It's about content only.Extraordinary2 (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The language I pick is correct and nothing you've said here says otherwise. You made the changes to the existing article - you have to respect the older version and defend what you think is right. To begin your comment by implying I have not been to college and therefore have a lesser understanding of this topic is an attack. You've been here for about a month and have already gotten into a conflict. Conflicts are inevitable here - the key thing is coming to a mutual compromise. But I don't know if we can reach that when you choose to make this discussion personal instead being "about content only". Bluerules (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, time after time you are using incorrect terminology. Hundreds or thousands of articles do talk about "years of eligibility" and they do not say an individual used up those years. They phrase it another way which is what you should do. Your word choice is not defensible. You used purport. Furthermore on your user page you have a quotation about corrupt systems. Corrupt systems may exist but they don't "allow" corruption to continue. The phrase has questionable logic.Extraordinary2 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to pick and choose which site principles are your favorites. Take the bold one for example. You use that one to pieces. You're brashly reverting people and getting into arguments; this appears to be your defense for your modus operandi. "I'll just edit and do whatever I want and if enough people don't like it they will have to stop me. I have been here since 2007 and if I survived this long I must not have many vulnerabilities or people can't find my kryptonite.

I said it before and I will reiterate. You evidently like journalism but never wrote for any outlets. They would fire you for the things you are doing and you would say "You're attacking me." They would rightly say, "No, you are just not good enough." Instead of trying to improve you quibble.Extraordinary2 (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't cited any principles to support your arguments. Using WP:BRD doesn't make it any less appropriate or valid. If I make a change to an older version and get reverted, I'll let the older version stand and take the discussion to the talk page. I ask for the same courtesy when I revert a newer version, as we're supposed to do. I explain why the reversion was made. You're free to spin discussions as "arguments", but we're supposed to have discussions over conflicts. That's how progress is made. I am willing to listen to compromises and I will not argue against a consensus that supports changing or keeping the older version. You are not trying to have a discussion. You are trying to overwhelm my talk page with multiple replies to individual comments, while slinging personal attacks.

Actually, I am a journalist and I have written for outlets. My editor is my superior. I am supposed to follow his advice because I answer to him. You are not my editor. We are peers who do not hold authority over the other. You do not have the authority to demonstrate I'm "just not good enough" and you have failed to demonstrate how your edits are "improvements", which is why they've been reverted. You are on a website with a policy called WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS and you are repeatedly violating it. That may not apply in a newsroom, but it applies here and you should be following it. Bluerules (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are really bad at listening. I asked you to clearly write the phrases of text you have questions about. It's on four articles or more, Mac Jones, Bailey Zappe... Then I will show you which words are incorrect.Extraordinary2 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle. You made the changes, the burden of defending them is on you. Bluerules (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have not provided a single valid argument to demonstrate I'm using "incorrect terminology", again rendering your allegation moot. Citing what "hundreds or thousands of article" say and don't say is an WP:OTHERCONTENT argument that holds no weight. You should not phrase articles simply because other articles phrase it a certain way because again, that's OTHERCONTENT. You need a substantive argument; it's a fact that Zappe used his last year of eligibility at Western Kentucky and continually saying "used up" is a continued strawman. Facts belong on Wikipedia. You bring up my usage of purport, but fail to explain anything wrong with it. And then you bring up something I wrote almost 10 years ago on my user page, which has zero relevance to this discussion and isn't even on an actual article. If you are going to bring up irrelevant content such as that, I have to question if you are arguing in good faith. Bluerules (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to the same point, me asking about the corruption statement. Stop thinking people are wrong. Just maybe you are 95 percent wrong. Regardless we could agree on everything IF YOU WOULD simply write out each phrase with which you disagree. Extraordinary2 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't go to any point. That was written almost 10 years ago and isn't even part of an article. Stop thinking you're right. Just maybe, you are 95% wrong. Again, you made the change - the burden of demonstrating why you made the changes is on you. Bluerules (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, stop! Type out the phrases you question. I am beginning to think everyone who knows you finds you impossible and troublesome.Extraordinary2 (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2022 (UTC) That is totally idiotic. You cite principles which mean nothing. Take the Other Content one. Wikipedia is not on an island and is not an island. I said nothing about the Other Content principle. You do not understand Wikipedia principles at all. Here is my point or pov about the "other" references. I said you use the wrong grammar and language. The way I edited Zappe is correct; the way you did it is not.Extraordinary2 (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both are wrong. Saying he used up years of eligibility is incorrect and also saying those years were used up. It's not correct grammar.Extraordinary2 (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman again. The article doesn't say "used up". The article says "used". That is correct. Arguing against this with a strawman is not a valid argument. Bluerules (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who has the burden of defending your changes. Not me. If that's difficult for you to do, then move on.

Purporting the principles "mean nothing" does not mean they mean nothing and they wouldn't exist if they did. Wikipedia not being "on an island" or "an island" doesn't change how your belief on editing goes against WP:OTHERCONTENT. It's not about you saying it - it's about you saying people should phrase articles a certain way because of how other editors phrase them. That's OTHERCONTENT; there are too many editors with differing views to make that work. And you purport I "do not understand Wikipedia principles at all", while completely misunderstanding OTHERCONTENT and not citing any to support your argument. You say I use the wrong grammar and language; I prove you use the wrong grammar and language. I explained the way I edited Zappe is correct; you "defend" your way with personal attacks and off-topic tangents because the way you did it is not. Bluerules (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type each phrase of the four or more articles with which you disagree. I will show you the right words and why the words you are picking are wrong or have never even been used or used in print anywhere. There are countless books and things in print. Become a journalist if you want but stop using bad grammar and then "not listening" when told about it.Extraordinary2 (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that burden is on you. You make multiple replies to single comments, but never actually demonstrate why your words are "right" and mine are "wrong or have never even been used in print anywhere". Just blanket statement after blanket statement. I am a journalist because I do use proper grammar and do listen. If you want to be a journalist, you need to start listening. Bluerules (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the nonsense. Let's try starting over; you make so many incorrect and false statements. Clearly type out each objection you have. When I go through 80 - 85 percent of them and you agree, we will have made quite a bit of progress. Stop and cease quoting principles you are not even using correctly. Forget the principles for now. You have run totally amok nevertheless we may get somewhere.

You don't even know if I am a journalist and I certainly won't out myself. You don't become a journalist by saying a mantra like you are. Your writing is far from good; you are using incorrect terminology. There is some gray area in journalism; over 90 percent of what I am telling you is not in that area. You do not realize saying that you are bold does not make you right. I repeat show me each sentence with which you disagree and I will show you how you are not right. Also you are annoying other people with how you edit. Extraordinary2 (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying someone makes "so many incorrect and false statements" unfortunately does not prove an individual makes "incorrect and false statements" and your inability to back this assertion up demonstrates this. You are the one who has the burden of defending your changes. Not me. If you are not willing to defend your changes, then even you are conceding they don't belong. You may boldly purport I'll agree with 80 to 85% of them, but I've seen them and I've seen the problems with them; problems you're, again, not defending. I will not stop citing principles that I am using correctly and demonstrate the errors with your approach. Once again, saying I'm "not even using [principles] correctly" does not make it true - because it's not. For someone who came in here talking about principles, you haven't cited a single one to support your own case. Now you say, "Forget the principles for now." That's not how Wikipedia works. You use the principles, not outside references. Saying I have "run totally amok" when you're making multiple replies to single comments and not even staying on-topic is continued pot, kettle behavior.

I don't care if you're a journalist. I don't care if you've gone to college or not. I don't care if you believe me, but contrary to your "mantra" assertion, I did become a journalist. What I care about are your edits. Instead of defending them, you make this personal. You make blanket statement after blanket statement. My writing is perfectly good and am using correct terminology. No blanket statements from you and sources you hide behind will change that. What you are "telling" me are what other people have written because you're incapable of defending your own edits. I did not say I'm bold - I'm saying you made the change and that's why the older version stands in a conflict. I am right in that regard and I am right to revert your edits. I repeat that you are the one who must defend your changes, not me. You continue to refuse to do so, effectively showing how you are not right and you secretly know it. And you conclude with an unsubstantiated allegation of me "annoying other people" - while you continue to make as many replies as you can here. Bluerules (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is nutty to think I secretly think I edit in an incorrect fashion. I have said I can show you each error you have made. Then you bring up strawman stuff which is not relevant. I was beginning with Zappe and we haven't even gotten past a single edit on Zappe let alone a handful more on the same page and also other articles. Extraordinary2 (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing secretive here. You'll say you do things, but you don't. Saying you can show the alleged errors I've made means nothing. It's up to you to prove it and you've been unable to do so from the beginning. The strawman stuff is completely relevant because you've been making strawman arguments against my edits. You began with Zappe, but you haven't actually defended your edits on Zappe. You're trying to force that burden on others, but it's your burden to defend your edits on Zappe's page and other articles. Bluerules (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is proof you are making a mistake on the Dusty Baker article. english.stackexchange.com/questions/272373/has-yet-to-win-vs-has-yet-won

Here is proof you are stalking my edits and making strawman arguments. I did not add "yet" to the Dusty Baker article. I removed it. Bluerules (talk) 12:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, you were in error to remove it. Read the four links. Extraordinary2 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, I was correct to use it. You are in error in your usage of these links. This one says "[yet] means that it is still expected/known that he will do it". It is not known Baker will win the World Series. It is expected the Astros will beat the Phillies, but that is an assumption and we don't deal with assumptions. Thanks for proving my point. Bluerules (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This link talks about Sony winning fans. You do not understand how yet to is being used. yahoo.com/entertainment/sony-yet-win-anime-fans-143009975.html There is no assumption. Thus you are wrong. More about "yet to". ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/have-yet-to

How other people write articles has zero relevance here. You do not understand how Wikipedia works.

There is a complete assumption. Thus, you are wrong. To again quote your own links - "[yet] refers to an event that has not occurred so far but that might occur in the future". Actually read your own links.

You may do well to go back and look at what users have said to you before on the site. You have a difficult time listening. Now you are correct that it's tough to be correct all the time; please quit assuming you have figured out certain terminology. When I say you are using clunky words what I mean is you can't find magazines and papers (newspapers) saying what you say. They phrase things much differently.

You may do well to stay on-topic and stop stalking me before you get reported. Pot, kettle again. When I have a conflict, I discuss it on the talk page and don't go against the consensus. Your response to a conflict has been to blow up my talk page with multiple replies that aren't even on-topic anymore. This is not about terminology; this is about what's best for the project. I am correct because I can actually demonstrate I am correct. You hide behind other sources and assume they are correct just because they wrote things a certain way. That still has zero relevance here. You can say I use "clunky words" all you want, but failing to prove that renders that point moot and trying to prove it with outside sources instead of actually demonstrating it just further demonstrates you don't have a leg to stand on. It is irrelevant how other sources phrase things. This is Wikipedia - focus on Wikipedia. If you can't prove things on your own, that's a sign you can't prove it at all. Bluerules (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another link https://ludwig.guru/s/yet+to+win Extraordinary2 (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A link that says nothing about when to use "yet". It's just citing examples of it being used. If you think it's acceptable to use "yet" simply because other sources used it, you don't understand context. Bluerules (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I showed you four links which contradict how you use the word yet. The Dusty Baker edit you made is in error. You're misusing the word yet. When I show you links about it instead of looking to see what they say, you're arguing that links don't prove anything and make my argument or statements wrong or moot. That's not the case. Extraordinary2 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those four links contradict my removal of "yet". Two actually support my edit - "[yet] refers to an event that has not occurred so far but that might occur in the future" and "[yet] refers to an event that has not occurred so far but that might occur in the future". One is an off-topic news article that was written under a completely different context and one is simply citing when "yet" is used in articles that are, again, in a completely different context. Just because some sources use "yet" doesn't mean yet has to be always used. The Dusty Baker edit was 100% correct. I am using "yet" - you're misusing sources. When you use links, actually look to see what they say. Note that I am actually quoting the links - demonstrating that I did look to see what they say - and using those quotes to demonstrate your links don't prove anything and make your arguments / statements wrong and moot. That is the case and I've proved it. When you use links, you need to look to see what they say instead of assuming they automatically prove you correct and relying on blanket statements to back you up. That's not the case and your failure to refute the direct quotes proving my point demonstrates this. Bluerules (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please type out each objection you have had. I'll demonstrate how you are not right about them. This goes for five or more articles now.Extraordinary2 (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify each of your edits. That is not my responsibility. You should be able demonstrate how I'm "not right about them" without prompting from me - but you won't because I am right. No matter how many of my edits you stalk, this won't change. Bluerules (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained to you that media outlets (magazines and newspapers) talk about "years of eligibility". Instead of making up or coining new word usages which no one has ever used before, use the correct terms. In this instance the final year of eligibility is not used or used up. It's phrased HOW I edited it and you removed the phrase which is right. If you make wrong edits expect them to be gone and reverted, changed. Extraordinary2 (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained to you how other sources write is irrelevant. But since you're so adamant that I've made up / coined new word uses that "no one has ever used before", I did what you purported to do and checked if any media outlets said an amateur athlete "used" his last year of eligibility. The results?

"should Newton have used his last year of eligibility elsewhere?"

"This year, Russell Wilson used his last year of eligibility to play for the Wisconsin Badgers after spending his previous football career with the NC State Wolfpack."

"Russell Wilson used his last year of eligibility at Wisconsin after graduating from North Carolina State"

"Gudaitis graduated from Illinois Wesleyan in 2021 and used his last year of eligibility at Division II University of Springfield."

"Jimmy Graham also used his last year of eligibility to play football at the University of Miami in Florida."

These sources demonstrate the final year of eligibility is "used". This is a correct term and "used up" was never added to the article, making this a strawman argument. These sources phrase it how I edited it, which is right. Your edit was wrong because it created an unneeded split between sentences. If you make wrong edits, they will be gone, reverted, and changed. Bluerules (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes both sides are right. He (Kenny Pickett) played college football at the University of Pittsburgh winning the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award as a senior, and was selected by the Steelers in the first round of the 2022 NFL Draft. That is right and so is this version. He played college football at the University of Pittsburgh, where he won the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award as a senior, and was selected by the Steelers in the first round of the 2022 NFL Draft. It would also be correct to leave out the comma after Pittsburgh or to say played college football for the University of Pittsburgh.Extraordinary2 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right to leave the comma out after Pittsburgh. There is a pause present, hence the comma. "Where" adds context. And it's better to say "at" than "for" because it allows for less words and more variety. Bluerules (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That slight punctuation is not worth mentioning. No, you are incorrect about at and for. Are you ready to listen? Extraordinary2 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth mentioning because your edit was grammatically incorrect. You are also incorrect about "at" and "for" because "at" prevents repetition ("for the Pittsburgh Steelers", "for the University of Pittsburgh"). I've been ready to listen from the beginning; it's your call if you want to explain your changes. Bluerules (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from my call. You haven't been listening at all and now two other editors are doing the same thing you are. I said it before and I repeat it. You should be able to type out EACH thing I edit with which you disagree. I will explain why you are likely wrong and then you can agree to leave the edits alone. Also you can poll or start a talk page section on each article. So no, it is your call.Extraordinary2 (talk) 04:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely your call. Every time you say I'm not "listening at all", I will say the pot is calling the kettle black. If two other editors are doing the same thing as me, that's a good indication you're in the wrong here. You should be able to type out EACH thing you edit and justify those edits. That is not my burden - that is your burden. You made the changes; you must defend them. And you cannot assume I am "likely wrong" and I'm going to "agree to leave the edits alone". You need to enter the discussion with an open mind to ensure a comprise is reached. And no, Wikipedia is not a poll. You can start a talk page - I asked you to do so and you did not. So no, it is your call. Bluerules (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary2, your inexperience with Wikipedia is showing. Please consider how you speak to other users and remember that this is a collaborative effort. Do not try to put down, belittle, and bully others into getting your way. Especially when your way is not an improvement. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Extraordinary2 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are not editing properly and you don't use summaries.Justanother2 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the copycat comments. You've been told your edits to Super Bowl LVI have been nonconstructive from the beginning of the year. You should listen to others. Bluerules (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You likely do not seek solutions for anything. When you are told you're not right, mathematically you would think you could figure out that you are not right 100 percent of the time.Justanother2 (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, kettle. Bluerules (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was using medical articles as an example to show technical terms aren't necessarily a bad thing. Using technical terms is actually pretty common across all projects on Wikipedia. WP:SEAOFBLUE doesn't say anything hyperlinks needing to be avoided. Sea of Blue is about avoiding placing links next to each other when possible. Taking that and your objections into consideration, would you object to using Waivers (American football) to link the word "waivers" in my version of the text?--Rockchalk717 01:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying technical terms are a bad thing, but as an encyclopedia, we should be as accessible as possible with our terms - especially with a sports article, which should be easier to understand than a medical article. And I suppose WP:OVERLINK is more appropriate policy here, as that applies to my point. I'm not saying hyperlinks should be avoided, but they should be avoided whenever possible. In that regard, I believe the circumstances of Mayfield joining the Rams can be described more simplistically and without the need for another hyperlink. "Picked up" does not have the same issue as the other wordings that implied Mayfield had control over which team signed him. But if you prefer saying he was claimed off waivers and including a hyperlink, I won't press the matter further. Bluerules (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overlink doesn't necessarily apply either, especially since if anything it indirectly recommends a link in this situation. But I digress, I'll update it because waivers is the accurate term and a link being provided will help someone who may not understand the NFL's waiver rules.--Rockchalk717 19:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overlink completely applies when the circumstances of Mayfield joining the Rams can be written without a technical term requiring a hyperlink. It is also accurate to say he signed with the Rams, joined the Rams, and was picked up by the Rams. It could be said he was simply claimed by the Rams without the waivers reference. I understand the issue with "signed with" and "joined" is those terms imply Mayfield chose the Rams when the Rams chose him. But to say he was "picked up" or "claimed" don't have that issue. Those are the wordings I would prefer, but I can live with the current wording as this is a minor issue. Bluerules (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Indianapolis Colts–Minnesota Vikings game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KSTP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 3×3 Eyes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source did not support what I previously wrote. I was mistaken in my edit. Bluerules (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion on the Akira plot. My bad Fones4jenke (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It's easy to confuse characters who have similar names. Bluerules (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which NFL talk page says that the lead for Henry Ruggs should not include "who is a free agent?" I'm not finding it. ChessEric 20:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_20#Proposal:_remove_"is_a_free_agent"_from_player_article_leads Bluerules (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't seen that nor knew it was for all players. ChessEric 22:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think it's for the better. Bluerules (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had not even realized that you had already had this conversation before on your talk page. :p ChessEric 15:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good! Bluerules (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Titans season 1 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Titans season 2 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Titans season 3 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lloyd's Lunchbox is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lloyd's Lunchbox (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chidgk1 (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bluerules,

I noticed that you reverted my edit in the Super Bowl LIII article, which was based on MOS:PREFIXDASH and wanted to follow-up with you on that:

1. You did not provide an explanation of your edit. When you edit on Wikipedia you should always provide a summary of the changes you are making (WP:FIES), especially when you are reverting another editor's contributions. Looking through some of your other recent edits, I see that this is more than an isolated incident. Relationally, given that the encyclopedia is a collaboration, this is also important as a courtesy as well as how we can learn from each other over time.

2. When you revert an edit where a MOS element has been specifically referenced, as I did in my edit, you should offer an explanation that references it as well (e.g., cite specifically what is contradictory by referencing the MOS, offer your interpretation of the MOS element that was cited if different).

2. MOS:PREFIXDASH: The en dash in this usage is a Wikipedia MOS/orthographic convention that indicates that a compound modifier is made up of a multi-word element. In this way, it is used on Wikipedia, instead of a hyphen, to prevent ambiguity and to ensure that the entire compound is read as a cohesive unit. In this case, the modifier is "Los Angeles" not "Angeles" which is what the hyphen would represent.

3. Dashes are hard. Their grammatical use can be difficult and the syntactical conventions can be surprising. MOS:PREFIXDASH may seem unfamiliar but it is ubiquitous in documentation styles (e.g., APA) and not just a peculiar or pedantic convention on Wikipedia. If you have questions just ask, but I recommend that you avoid reverting what other editors have done with dashes unless you thoroughly understand their use.

4. By reverting my edit you introduced an error in the article. You should correct that.

Edward Bednar (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I try to be as brief as possible.

1. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to explain all of my edits. I try to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious / significant edits, but when it's something seemingly minor, I simply make the edit. I apologize if this was an important edit to you, but to me, changing the en dash to a hyphen was a minor edit.

2. I also do not have the time to check the revision history every time I edit an article. Again, if the edits seem significant, I'll look for an explanation, but since this was minor to me, I simply made the edit. Therefore, I did not see you were referencing a MOS element.

3. MOS:PREFIXDASH says "use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, dash or hyphen". There is no prefix or suffix in "Los Angeles-based". "Los Angeles" and "based" are normal components that function without an en dash or a hyphen. And in this case, MOS also says a hyphen "joins components more strongly than the en dash".

4. Again, MOS:PREFIXDASH recommends en dashes when one of the compounds is an affix. There is no affix in "Los Angeles-based".

5. So is there really an error in the article? These recommendations from MOS indicate there aren't. MOS even writes out "non-Latin-based" with hyphens instead of en-dashes. Bluerules (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TCNJ Seal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sandy Martin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't remove it again, but being a 2 time bowl MVP has absolute correlation to being drafted that high. Anthony Richardson had absolute zero accolades in college and was drafted top 5. It's fairly irrelevant. Yankees10 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the player doesn't have college accolades, that's fair, but Wilson at least did something in college that got him noticed and helped him get drafted highly. I agree being a two-time bowl game MVP isn't as prominent as other college accolades, but it's still something. If we have context for why a player was drafted highly, I feel it's worth adding to the lead. Bluerules (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...to know the rules about edit warring, reverting without discussion, and sourcing. I've told you three times now that your descriptions are unsourced and the cast section needs to be sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here long enough to know the rules about editing in good faith and not having ownership over articles. Your own descriptions contain unsourced information. You are removing sourced information. I understand feeling defensive over content you've written, but you should be working with other editors to improve your writing, not hitting the revert button when someone makes changes. Bluerules (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I've said has referred to ownership at all, you made unsourced changes to a sourced section and when challenged on it you just did the same thing a further 3 times. I explained the issue each time and you ignored it each time. I added a source and you reverted that edit because you weren't even paying attention, you were only interested in things being your way, which is exactly what you were like on Burt Wonderstone, it didn't matter what sources or evidence were presented, you were right and everyone else was wrong. You were a difficult editor 11 years ago, and you aren't any different now, including trying to accuse others of ownership when they've explained why you ignoring the rules isn't acceptable. MOS style guides don't have to say "things should be sourced" because all content needs sourcing. You know that, you've been here long enough to know that and you're just choosing to ignore it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership is not something you say, it is something you do. You are displaying WP:OWN by reverting edits that don't match with the character descriptions you wrote. I explained the explicit issues with your writing - namely the inaccurate descriptions of Kevin Durand and Giancarlo Esposito's characters - and rather than keep the content that was accurate and sourced, you reverted everything. You still have the same pot / kettle behavior you had over a decade ago and now you're demonstrating you're not above holding petty grudges either. There was no right or wrong over Burt Wonderstone; it was a difference in formatting opinions. I maintain it would have been better for the cast order to follow the ending credits and if this became an issue again, I would respond to every point you make, just as I did 11 years ago. But I can now see that was a minor subject and I'm more invested in bigger issues; namely, making certain the prose is accurate and well-written. Hitting undo without looking at other people's edits - and I made several rewrites in an attempt at compromise - does enter WP:OWN territory. On the other hand, there are no rules being ignored by using content directly from the film to write about content explicitly established in the film. MOS:FILMCAST does say "things should be sourced" when things have to been sourced. It explicitly says uncredited cast members - something not explicitly established in the film - need sources. It does not say anything else in the cast section needs sources - and you're choosing to ignore that. Pot, kettle. Bluerules (talk) 06:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're threating to block me over a simple dispute? LMAO you Wikipedia dorks have the most fragile egos 2600:8800:A68B:9C00:C16D:EC85:1A26:C526 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell they never threatened to block you. They simply reverted your edits and gave adequate explanations why. Also, please remember to be civil. interstatefive  17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm letting you know that if you continue to be disrespectful, the administrators will be notified. Bluerules (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Deadpool & Wolverine 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; read about 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.
Please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said I was done after my third revert. I made a talk page section for this issue. Familiarize yourself with WP:BRD, please. Bluerules (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made four reverts. WP:3RR defines a "revert" as any edit ... that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. Your four edits were all reverts to this revision: 2024-07-25T09:30:42. As you're insistent on not having violated WP:3RR, were recently warned in May of this year about edit warring, and as this is not your first blocked offense, I'll be submitting it to WP:AN/3RR.

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. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, my first edit was not a revision to Billion Editz's edit. You can clearly see by the differences between my version and Billion Editz's version that I was not reverting to that previous version. I made three reverts back to my first edit and made no more. Bluerules (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: specific discussions about a niche, and the principles that apply in the niche take precedence over general practices. And: a cast list is a cast list all the same in the prose as it is in the infobox. As three other editors, @Trailblazer101, @YodaYogaYogurt154 and @MarioProtIV have told you, and you reverted all of them despite being, on the third try, given specific reasoning as to why it is done that way. You tried to say that rules did not apply in one place. You had no citation to back up your claim of "exception".

Perhaps it is you who needs to familiarize yourself with policy. BarntToust (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not made more than 3 reverts. they made 3. they are stopping. so this isn't edit warring. technicalities, @Locke Cole.

And those who I tagged here, ignore. I wrote this before I was aware this editor had started a discussion on the Deadpool & Wolverine talk page. BarntToust (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please discuss there. My bad on directing these three editors here. BarntToust (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have made more than three reverts, please see my evidence at WP:AN/3RR. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no principle that dictates a difference between a niche and the general practice of the infobox. And the cast section is not the infobox. It is formatted differently and thus written differently. None of those editors cited the correct policy for their revisions. I had to find it on my own and I found there is still a distinction between the prose and the infobox. They are not the same. They would not be in different sections on MOS:FILM if they were. I have provided the infobox and film page guidelines to back this up. I have directly quoted these guidelines. You have not done any of that.

It is definitely you who needs to familiarize yourself with policy. Bluerules (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Titans season 1 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Titans season 2 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Titans season 3 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I appreciate what you said at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:BottleOfChocolateMilk_-_WP:AGF_and_WP:CIVIL. I noticed that you forgot to sign your comment and thought you might like to do so. Happy editing!--User:Namiba 17:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm so used to having it automatically appear, I forgot I have to sometimes add it manually! Bluerules (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please grow up with your lead candidate stuff and bias. Please and thank you Generaluser11 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias. If a candidate isn't considered notable, they usually aren't included in the lead. I would advise you to also follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL to avoid the same issue. Bluerules (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]