User talk:Hotwiki/Archive 11
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Awarded yourself?
Hey, I was just reading over your user page, and noticed at the bottom....did you award yourself with the Special Barnstar? If you did I didn't know you could do that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I am that awesome!SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You've reached three reverts; if another editor reverts your removal of long-standing and valid information (especially while a discussion on this very topic is active), and you revert them, you will have violated the policy WP:3RR. -- AlexTW 23:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Revert my edit again and you will get the same warning. I gave good reasons why those were removed and you are not in the position to just revert it for no good reason. Now there's the talk page in that article which I posted why those details were removed.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Noticed how I stopped reverting? I notice that you did not. If I reverted again, and you restored your own edit, that's a violation of WP:3RR on your part, not mine - read up? I gave my reasons, they were sufficient enough. Given that it's you constantly removing the content over a span of a number of days, obviously to avoid the 3RR policy, the WP:CONSENSUS stands to keep it until any talk page discussion concludes stating otherwise. -- AlexTW 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- No my reasoning to reverting your edits is justified. And you have a questionable track record of reverting my edits which I will surely address when I have to explain myself to other editors. Again you don't own that article and I listened to the editors' suggestion when I made a decision to remove certain things.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- Noticed how I stopped reverting? I notice that you did not. If I reverted again, and you restored your own edit, that's a violation of WP:3RR on your part, not mine - read up? I gave my reasons, they were sufficient enough. Given that it's you constantly removing the content over a span of a number of days, obviously to avoid the 3RR policy, the WP:CONSENSUS stands to keep it until any talk page discussion concludes stating otherwise. -- AlexTW 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of X-Men members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S.W.O.R.D.. 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) 10:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Move request
A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
X-Men (Film series)
Hi, you deleted the Legion section stating that it was "definitely not a tie in", I can see where you are coming from, but that view is not shared by any of the official statements by the Donners, Fuller, etc., for example, http://screenrant.com/legion-tv-x-men-shared-universe/ Can you fix please? Damiantgordon (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- This was already discussed in the talk page of the article. So you might be a little late for bringing this up. If you read the Legion article, you can read right there, the comments from the producers contradicting what you claimed that the producers have said.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- O.K., thanks Damiantgordon (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
- This was already discussed in the talk page of the article. So you might be a little late for bringing this up. If you read the Legion article, you can read right there, the comments from the producers contradicting what you claimed that the producers have said.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
This argument has however been disproved by the talk page. Users in favor of including Legion gave multiple reasons and references as to why it should be included on the page. The section was removed simply because of the confusion regarding the TV series. When the series creator/writer/producer/director states that it is and will be more integrated into the film-side of things, there is no debate. The confusion arises given the series' nature to stand on its own, and the lack of reliable storyline given the character's psychosis. It will eventually be included on the page. It will. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Why are you so whiney?
I've been looking at the X-Men page lately and almost Everytime I look at it it's different somehow. Then I go to see who's been editing it and their comments on the edits that they've made and you really attack people who you deem as putting wrong information on the page for things as simple as who is or who isn't an X-Man or things like what constitutes too much or too little detail. This is a public encyclopedia where people are free to edit as they see fit so if you see something wrong why not just keep the comments simple like "added/removed/fixed content" instead of making comments that are clearly yelling at the previous editors? You catch more flies with honey than vinegar you know. Just a thought. I won't be the slightest surprised if you start yelling at me next. Papadim40x (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for wasting your time telling me your hilarious opinions. Not that Wikipedia needs it. Lol. Kthxbye! TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- I too notice this, Papadim40x. There are editors on this webpage who believe they are more qualified than others. It's wrong and against Wikipedia policy. Be constructive in your comments, Hotwiki.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- What an observation. Remind me of a statement where I said I am better than other editors? I just try to be the best version of myself as an editor. That's all.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I too notice this, Papadim40x. There are editors on this webpage who believe they are more qualified than others. It's wrong and against Wikipedia policy. Be constructive in your comments, Hotwiki.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for wasting your time telling me your hilarious opinions. Not that Wikipedia needs it. Lol. Kthxbye! TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
^I would say the tone is more demeaning as opposed to 'whiney'. There is no such thing as an elite group on Wikipedia.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Cool story bro. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Examples of said "demeaning"
- "Now be a good editor and not do it again"
- "you're the one to talk"
- Beginning sentences with "So"
- Goading Fellow Editors - "Go ahead report me"
- Your refusal to hold a CONSENSUS on X-Men (film series) to implement major changes, as you are supposed to.
Nurseline247 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- You're putting too much thoughts about me. Just be the best version of an editor that you can be. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
- @HotWiki, I take by that statement that you will hold a CONSENSUS in future, like every other user has to?
- You're putting too much thoughts about me. Just be the best version of an editor that you can be. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nurseline247 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- If you say so, Queen of holding consensus. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
X-Men chart
I noticed you've re-edited the X-Men recurring characters chart on the X-Men (film series) page. I understand the need to shrink the chart as it was quickly getting to big and overly-detailed. I however think that the smaller formatting to the subtitles is something that has been done on various other pages, that may make the esthetic of the chart look nicer. Just a thought. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- it adds nothing but style. Anyway, it looks inconsistent when some of the words are in smaller font size. So keep it as it is. It is the title of the film, deal with it, no need to cherry pick on which word should get an emphasis by using a bigger font size.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yo, I added Sunspot to the chart because the character has been stated to appear in New Mutants and Deadpool 2. He has been cast for New Mutants, and he also appears in Days of Future Past - so that's three movies.....--50.232.205.246 (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yo! Where's yo source about Sunspot appearing in Deadpool 2? And yo! We don't write TBA in articles.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have violated 3RR. You do not understand the need to discuss. You were warned of this. -- AlexTW 12:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Go ahead report me, I was just merely helping the article not to dwelve into speculative area. Again, the description was removed and freed the article for speculative information. What improvement did you make for the article aside for reverting my edits?TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- You may have "just been doing this" or "just been doing that", but that does not excuse your edit-warring. The article has stood thus for undoubtedly longer than you've been editing it; you do not force your edits through edit-warring, and you've been blocked previously for edit-warring on the very same article. You were explained to that what you've added was not helping it "dwelve into speculative area"; rather, you were dwelving into it yourself, per what was explained on the talk page. -- AlexTW 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. Again I was merely trying to improve the article. I gave you good reasons when I reverted your edits and gave a quick solution to the speculative part of the article's section. Next time, try to improve an article instead of impulsive reverts!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- The reasons for your reverts don't matter. They count as reverts, and you should have left it to the last version of WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) while you discussed your issues, instead of violation WP:3RR (another policy). -- AlexTW 13:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- No. Again I was merely trying to improve the article. I gave you good reasons when I reverted your edits and gave a quick solution to the speculative part of the article's section. Next time, try to improve an article instead of impulsive reverts!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- You may have "just been doing this" or "just been doing that", but that does not excuse your edit-warring. The article has stood thus for undoubtedly longer than you've been editing it; you do not force your edits through edit-warring, and you've been blocked previously for edit-warring on the very same article. You were explained to that what you've added was not helping it "dwelve into speculative area"; rather, you were dwelving into it yourself, per what was explained on the talk page. -- AlexTW 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As I noticed no one informed you, there appears to be a thread about you on ANI. The User:DisneyMetalhead|OP]] didn't name you specifically (perhaps as a way of getting around the requirement to do so -- they didn't post any notifications to anyone else, anyway, nor explicitly name anyone on ANI), but User:AlexTheWhovian explicitly referred to you as the offending editor in question
. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I notified the editor that such a discussion existed; per the next edit: I wasn't the one who filed it, I'm not the one required to post the message. -- AlexTW 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- A comment on an article talk page in which you didn't ping the user, link the specific thread, or even specifically mention ANI, is not a valid notification. Also, you were the one who suggested to DMH to open the ANI thread in question, DMH thanked you for your idea, and, honestly, if it weren't for you using the words "the offending editor" I never would have even guessed that it was about any particular user from what DMH wrote, so as the one who had (in a manner of speaking) made the thread about Hotwiki, you arguably had as much of a responsibility to notify them as DMH did. 182.251.155.49 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- And who am I speaking to, O Random IP? Your personal notes have been noted; however, again: I did not create the report, regardless of my own comments, hence I had no obligation to mention it to them. -- AlexTW 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Check my edit summaries on ANI. I am under no obligation to jump through all the hoops necessary to post logged-in on my iPad's newly updated (more like ... fuckedup-dated) browser when my identity is obvious from the context. And the moment you posted about Hotwiki on ANI, and were clearly aware that the latter had not been notified, you put took on the responsibility to notify them. (In fact, it is standard practice to point out when commenting on ANI thread where the subject was not notified that the subject was not notified, and 99% of random editors would likely do the notification themselves anyway, even if that was all they did.) You did not do so. And your repeated refusal to refer to them by name made it pretty clear that you were doing so on purpose. Anyway, when you told the new editor that they should open an ANI thread on Hotwiki, you might have doubly notified them that they are obliged to notify Hotwiki. Your own being the one who told DisneyMetalhead to open the discussion makes you far more responsible for notifying than any random ANI passer-by and, as I said above, most random passers-by probably would notify, as I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting. You gave no indication that the IP editor was indeed you, but you expect me to know that it was you. Doing this on purpose and editing while logged out, an attempt to deceive me. Tut, tut. Apologies I can't read minds over the internet.
- Provide a policy that states that if my comment was directed to the editor in question, and as an apparent "causer" of the report, that I am responsible for notifying said editor. That's all I have to say for you here; I'll wait. I also await your reply at ANI. -- AlexTW 18:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you're being tongue-in-cheek with your first paragraph, but I explicitly explained that it was not on purpose (I had already done a lot of work to make sure my earlier posts on this same page had been logged in). IPs don't have watchlists, so some random IP couldn't be a talk page stalker, and you had already replied to the comment in which I explained how difficult it was to edit logged-in.
- You explicitly told the editor in question that they should open an ANI thread, and they later thanked you for idea. The editor posted on ANI about "certain editors", but you were the first to specifically refer to Hotwiki. On top of this, it is common good form to notify editors that they are being discussed on ANI if you notice that they haven't yet been notified. You clearly knew, as why else would you have been so careful to avoid using Hotwiki's name?
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Deliberate attempt to confuse by posting as an IP, without any indication of who you were. Got it.
- Provide a policy that states that if my comment was directed to the editor in question, and as an apparent "causer" of the report, that I am responsible for notifying said editor. That's all I have to say for you here; I'll wait. -- AlexTW 04:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
- Check my edit summaries on ANI. I am under no obligation to jump through all the hoops necessary to post logged-in on my iPad's newly updated (more like ... fuckedup-dated) browser when my identity is obvious from the context. And the moment you posted about Hotwiki on ANI, and were clearly aware that the latter had not been notified, you put took on the responsibility to notify them. (In fact, it is standard practice to point out when commenting on ANI thread where the subject was not notified that the subject was not notified, and 99% of random editors would likely do the notification themselves anyway, even if that was all they did.) You did not do so. And your repeated refusal to refer to them by name made it pretty clear that you were doing so on purpose. Anyway, when you told the new editor that they should open an ANI thread on Hotwiki, you might have doubly notified them that they are obliged to notify Hotwiki. Your own being the one who told DisneyMetalhead to open the discussion makes you far more responsible for notifying than any random ANI passer-by and, as I said above, most random passers-by probably would notify, as I did. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- And who am I speaking to, O Random IP? Your personal notes have been noted; however, again: I did not create the report, regardless of my own comments, hence I had no obligation to mention it to them. -- AlexTW 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- A comment on an article talk page in which you didn't ping the user, link the specific thread, or even specifically mention ANI, is not a valid notification. Also, you were the one who suggested to DMH to open the ANI thread in question, DMH thanked you for your idea, and, honestly, if it weren't for you using the words "the offending editor" I never would have even guessed that it was about any particular user from what DMH wrote, so as the one who had (in a manner of speaking) made the thread about Hotwiki, you arguably had as much of a responsibility to notify them as DMH did. 182.251.155.49 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
There is a WP:ANI topic brought up including your recent edits and tone on X-Men (film series) edit history, as well as talk:X-Men (film series) as a whole (and there's A LOT of those comments and edits included, I am referencing here). Tried to be civil by allowing admins to decide who is behaving uncivil thereon, but have notified you to cover all my bases. You can find the incident report here.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
May 2017
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to X-Men (film series), please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.
It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. -- AlexTW 10:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- RE: [1][2][3]. These were performed by the bot [4]. -- AlexTW 03:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- [5] Not sure if you're catching this post at all. -- AlexTW 03:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Bump on the preview message: this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history
-- AlexTW 05:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
The file File:Hotwiki'spicture.jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unused personal photo.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kelly hi! 08:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
The file File:Hotwikieditcount.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Unused personal image.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kelly hi! 08:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Halle Berry in The Wolverine
You keep reverting my edits to the recurring cast chart. Your comment about having Einstein listed in the chart is ludicrous and has nothing to do with the topic. Storm is a recurring character hence she is in the chart. The fact that Wolverine looks over a file full of his history, and Storm is plainly seen -- listing the character there with the reference label clarifying that it was in a still-photograph is constructive and completes the chart. What is your reasoning for excluding it? You have none.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Notable X-Men members
Why do you keep undoing whenever ppl mention Jimmy Hudson as a notable member of the X-Men? He officially joined the team in X-Men Blue. And why do you keep saying things like "no original research" or "uncited claim"? Chicopoguna (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- The user frequently exhibits WP:OWNing behaviors over articles that they contribute to. I recommend taking the issue to the page's talk-page if you haven't already. Their consistent inabilities to be collaborative have arose before. --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Little Nanay title card.png
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) 17:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Juan Happy Love Story title card.png
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) 17:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Someone to Watch Over Me title card.png
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) 17:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:My Faithful Husband title card.png
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) 17:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Rich Man's Daughter title card.png
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) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Alyas Robin Hood title card.png
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) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Ratings table
Hey, I notice that you always reverted back my edits. I don't know why but it seems you know it all. Having a lot of edits here does not make you powerful on Wiki. You are manipulating us. Why don't you notice ABS-CBN shows such as Wildflower (TV series), Ang Probinsyano, The Better Half (TV series) and Pusong Ligaw that uses the table form in ratings section?? We just follow them. And we think that it is more informative than creating paragraphs. Leo kingston (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh really? Like it was originally written in capital letters? That the average rating has no source? Like half of the cells are empty. No your table is inappropriate. The ratings for the premiere, finale, series peak and season average can easily be as written in a paragraph without all the empty cells. I can show you a lot more articles that doesn't follow this misguided table of yours! The articles you mentioned are poorly sourced. And I am not using my powers especially I didn't say I have one. You are resorting to personal attacks which can be reported to the Admins.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:Leo kingston, they are also self-proclaimed to be 'very hot', and also unexplainably give themselves awards...they are not very colaborative unless the edits are in congruence with their own opinions. Start a discussion of the edits that they keep reverting on the page's talk page and you will find there are users who would agree with you.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Apology
Dear Hotwiki, I placed the show Super Ma'am because the show will air later. Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 17:47 18 September 2017 (UTC).
- Don't apologize if you are just gonna revert my edit. And you have a problem of being ahead of time. Updating the episode count when the latest hasn't aired yet and now this? Stop it.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry about that. Please give me a chance to edit, but I didn't spoil anything. Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 13:06 18 September 2017 (UTC).
- I didn't ask you not to edit. But don't expect no one would revert your edit especially when you get ahead of time once again.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 05:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
March 2018
Dear Hotwiki, I am not yet contributed to these GMA Network-related shows because I'm felt hurt to revert my edit, my edits that you have been reverted because you've have been disappointed about my edits, it really hurt for me. I really wanted to contribute this site once and for all, but I didn't vandalize. I'm really sorry for my edits that you disappoint because I need to add to my list of contributions. It really hurts for me because my edits are reverted and I'm not going wrong to edit, I made it right. But please forgive me for all my allegations about you. I cried myself because they hurt me without any reasons. Are you getting mad at me?, I'm not getting bad. I don't do anything wrong. Please don't be disappointed for my edits. And I hope you forgive me. Peace! Mc Eduard Figueroa (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Stop bombarding my talk page with your bad grammar. I already got six notifications from you posting in my talk page. Just stop.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Kingsmen - Chester King
Hi,
Can I ask why you have reverted where I have separated the Kingsmen position of "Arthur"?
In the first film Chester King was Arthur and was then killed off by Eggsy, in the second film the position of Arthur has been taken by Michael Gambon but he is not the character Chester King?
Regards
Pam-javelin (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
October 2017
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- AlexTW 11:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Oh great. Now tell me incited edits shouldn't be removed and that you disagree that Soap Opera is a drama? This just shows that you are biased and will ignore editors with reasonable edits who didn't agree with you in the past. How about you report me now so I could further explain my edits to more editors? TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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. -- AlexTW 12:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Unblock
Hotwiki (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So I was blocked solely because I reverted an edit that was incited and claimed that Soap opera isn't a drama?
Decline reason:
You were blocked for violating WP:3RR, a policy you know well, having been blocked for this twice before. As you have not addressed this in your unblock request, there are no grounds for considering lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Is a soap opera a drama or a separate category? Who knows - maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I do know it's a really silly thing to get a 3RR block for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: First of all, I already included a source that it is a drama when the first revert happened. Meaning I just didn't revert, but also Added a reference to support my claim. Second I Asked the editor to provide a source which he failed to do so when he reverted my again so I wasn't supposed to revert his incited edit? I've also already discussed it in the talk page of the article. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you can revert, but you reverted it too many times, even after being warned for edit-warring. Five times. Just because you contributed to the discussion, does not mean you're allowed to violated the WP:3RR policy. Take a read of WP:3RRNO as well - this case does not fall under it. -- AlexTW 12:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- And its just a coincidence that you were the one to report this when in the past, you had a habit of reverting my edits? Or you are just stalking my contributions and waiting for the right time to report me? Oh dear. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Accusations, accusations. Oh dear, indeed. Actually, this thread: User talk:DisneyMetalhead#Franchise Article. The talk page is on my watchlist and I saw a comment about an edit-war. Didn't even know it was you until I visited the page. -- AlexTW 12:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- And its just a coincidence that you were the one to report this when in the past, you had a habit of reverting my edits? Or you are just stalking my contributions and waiting for the right time to report me? Oh dear. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you can revert, but you reverted it too many times, even after being warned for edit-warring. Five times. Just because you contributed to the discussion, does not mean you're allowed to violated the WP:3RR policy. Take a read of WP:3RRNO as well - this case does not fall under it. -- AlexTW 12:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- You did discuss it, and you did add a source, but unfortunately nobody agreed with you, and that's probably because defining a drama as a soap opera is kind of splitting hairs. That's unfortunate, but it means you need to stop reverting completely until there is an absolute cast-iron consensus for your change. Also, in my view, this is not an important change, and to be honest you should probably shrug your shoulders, think "worse things happen at sea" and find another article to work on. Now, I'm happy to unblock you once you understand that you were being disruptive, but I can't do it without a clear and honest understanding that you know what 3RR is. Can you do that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, I can work well with others and my main intention is just to improve the articles that interest me.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, can you explain, in your own words, why I blocked you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- For violating the 3 revert rule.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, now again in your own words, why do we have the three revert rule, why is it important to the project that admins sometimes have to block for it, and what could you do instead? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:GirlsAloudJingleBellRockSample.ogg
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) 17:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Sorrysingle0ot5pp.jpeg
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) 17:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
November 2017
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
Explanation: See the article for the film. It clearly states "the studio was temporarily referring to the film as Untitled Deadpool Sequel." You've been reverted by another editor, and were only just recently blocked for edit-warring - make sure it doesn't happen again. -- AlexTW 01:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ResidentEvilFilmSeries.jpg
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) 18:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Request
Hi sir, i just want to update the upcoming projects of gma network since they've already released their official list. It is for people to know what to watch in the future. Clyntarts (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Hotwiki. 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)
Talk header
Hi, Hotwiki. I noticed that you have created a couple of talk pages only using {{Talk header}}. Please note that talk pages should not be created using only the template. The documentation reads: "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page. Do not create a talk page that contains only this template." Please keep this in mind for the future, thanks! ℯxplicit 05:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rhodora X, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (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) 10:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
X-Men (film series)...again? Seriously?
I have noticed that you persistently delete and revert edits made by fellow editors on this page. Many times your arguments are that the page has been as it is for quite some time. With the studio being bought out by Disney, and the studio's plan to integrate all the characters there-in to the MCU, the change of layout and current information that I had added, were constructive and reflected those changes. All of the films that are currently in development stages are questionably still going to be released. Many of those that are released may be changed considerably to bring them into the MCU. With the studio executives stating that this is going to happen, why would you revert my additions? The current location for the MCU sub-header makes no sense as it appears to state that the MCU will be a part of this franchise. What will likely happen is the characters will all be rebooted while films in development will be reworked. I know we cannot state that, as it is unknown, but we can certainly reflect the current stance as far as the studio has stated. Each of these characters will be introduced in the MCU.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not a trivia page. And you should post your thoughts in the talk page of the article you're editing instead of harassing me in my talk page and butting yourself in other topics such as my edits in other articles that you probably haven't edited. Leave me alone.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- ..."Trivia"? How does that statement render the studio's official buyout and the in-question future of these films - invalid? It's acknowledge by the reliable sources I had added, yet you continue to revert other editors' edits relentlessly on various pages, as I commented above. Noone is harassing you. People are trying to be collaborative on this page among others - yet you are combative and negative towards others even after trying to contact you. Issues with editors (as I see many others have had with you) are supposed to be dealt with on their talk page. Not on some other page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Its not a commentary / trivia section. You should make your edits encyclopedic. For example why are you making edits like "According to an exclusive announcement from *insert website name*". Wikipedia isn't a news site, a place to speculate things and a collection of quotes. Your additional edits also didn't add up anything to Marvel Cinematic Universe section as they are just extraneous. And yes you are harassing me telling other editors that I am owning articles in my own talk page. Telling them to report me, that's canvassing 101. Especially those sections that you commented occurred months ago, had nothing to do with your edits and most especially, those edits that I was against with doesn't fall under Wikipedia's guidelines such as not including a source, typing with the caplocks on to name a few. I bet that's news to you since every edit I made is invalid to you simply because I reverted your edits. If you are so superior, your multiple attempts of moving the X-Men film series would have succeeded and it just won't be me that reverts your edits. Guess what, you aren't. Leave me alone.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- And again, you aren't in the position to question me if I want to award myself a barnstar. Its not illegal. Mind your own business.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Its not a commentary / trivia section. You should make your edits encyclopedic. For example why are you making edits like "According to an exclusive announcement from *insert website name*". Wikipedia isn't a news site, a place to speculate things and a collection of quotes. Your additional edits also didn't add up anything to Marvel Cinematic Universe section as they are just extraneous. And yes you are harassing me telling other editors that I am owning articles in my own talk page. Telling them to report me, that's canvassing 101. Especially those sections that you commented occurred months ago, had nothing to do with your edits and most especially, those edits that I was against with doesn't fall under Wikipedia's guidelines such as not including a source, typing with the caplocks on to name a few. I bet that's news to you since every edit I made is invalid to you simply because I reverted your edits. If you are so superior, your multiple attempts of moving the X-Men film series would have succeeded and it just won't be me that reverts your edits. Guess what, you aren't. Leave me alone.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- ..."Trivia"? How does that statement render the studio's official buyout and the in-question future of these films - invalid? It's acknowledge by the reliable sources I had added, yet you continue to revert other editors' edits relentlessly on various pages, as I commented above. Noone is harassing you. People are trying to be collaborative on this page among others - yet you are combative and negative towards others even after trying to contact you. Issues with editors (as I see many others have had with you) are supposed to be dealt with on their talk page. Not on some other page.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
...wow...--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- All of my edits have followed similar pages by stating the source and the official status of the movies. I can see there's no point in talking to you. I didn't tell anyone to report you. I told them to bring up their edits on the subject's talk-page. And yes, I have read the subjects and it among others always has your reverts all over them. Just look at the edits. That's all I've done and it's evident that you are not collaborative. No canvassing there, lol. On a side note..."your" X-Men page will eventually be moved. Especially now that the studio was bought out by Disney. The current franchise will be DOA.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- that's rich coming from you. It might get moved to X-Men in film like I suggested before. But it won't definitely be moved to what you were suggesting before. Lmao. Didn't you say before it would have an official title like X-Men Universe eventually and that it is outdated. Lol no Sherlock. Flash news, as fan I want the reboot to happen.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- All of my edits have followed similar pages by stating the source and the official status of the movies. I can see there's no point in talking to you. I didn't tell anyone to report you. I told them to bring up their edits on the subject's talk-page. And yes, I have read the subjects and it among others always has your reverts all over them. Just look at the edits. That's all I've done and it's evident that you are not collaborative. No canvassing there, lol. On a side note..."your" X-Men page will eventually be moved. Especially now that the studio was bought out by Disney. The current franchise will be DOA.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
- Born to Be Wild (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Travelogue
- Diyos at Bayan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Public affairs
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Freemecover.jpg
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) 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Maybecover.jpg
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) 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Illbetherecover.jpg
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) 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:CricketsSingForAnamaria.jpg
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) 18:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Born to Be Wild (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
February 2018
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Don't you think after three blocks for edit-warring you'd know not to and actually discuss things first? Read MOS:NUMERAL: numbers larger than nine are generally typed out as numbers. It doesn't matter what other articles do or what is more "formal" in your opinion. When somebody reverts you, don't continue restoring your changes. Discuss it. I will report this to an admin if you continue. Ss112 16:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Hotwiki. Just a friendly word of advice here. If there is a disagreement over content, style etc, you should take that to the article talk page and discuss it. Knee jerk reverting is not helpful and it tends to get people worked up. Which in turn makes it harder to discuss and reach an amicable agreement. Thanks for your many contributions to the project. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your welcome Ad Orientem! As for the other one, @Ss112:. I don't know what you are yapping at? I reverted your edit once and you reverted my edit twice. Lol. You were the one that was gonna break the three revert rule and you're passing it to me. Okay, take your advice again! TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- May I add, there are articles for a single that got a good article status that were fine typing the word, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth. @Ss112: feel free to tell me why those articles got away from it if its truly against Manual of Style.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
- Your welcome Ad Orientem! As for the other one, @Ss112:. I don't know what you are yapping at? I reverted your edit once and you reverted my edit twice. Lol. You were the one that was gonna break the three revert rule and you're passing it to me. Okay, take your advice again! TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Road Trip (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Travelogue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
X-Men
Never claim that I'm trying to "mislead" ever again. It's fuckig disgusting and insulting beyond belief. Maybe assume good faith next time even if you still think I'm wrong.★Trekker (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- It pretty clearly seems to show review scores for more episodes here for Legion if you scroll. Also, simply writing for which specific episode the reviews are for seems dumb as fuck since reviews can easily come out later.★Trekker (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- and what about the Gifted? I don't know if you can count. But 1 or few episodes aren't the full season. If they have reviewed every episode of season 1 of both shows, then you can remove episode 1. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for more rudeness. How about can you read my fucking points? So we should include a goddamn note for each episode that has been reviewed then in the table, pure idiocy. I opened a talk page discussion like you wanted but wasn't willing to open yourself. Which is the way it always is it seems.★Trekker (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- and what about the Gifted? I don't know if you can count. But 1 or few episodes aren't the full season. If they have reviewed every episode of season 1 of both shows, then you can remove episode 1. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- So you want me to open a talk page discussion but you're not mature enough to actually respond?★Trekker (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
- If you think I'm wrong about Legion having reviews for more than one episode how about you try to explain that instead of keep claiming that I'm misleading for no reason, how about you motivate why being overly specific is needed, how about you reply to the talkpage discussion that you wanted instead of edit warring? Huh, would you do that?★Trekker (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Broken Vow title card.jpg
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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
nita negrita
I am going to start a discussion the addition of a section on the blackface/racism controversy surrounding this TV show, on the article's talk page. You are welcome to contribute. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I just did.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- That's awesome bro! Thanks for the advice. 124.106.139.19 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)