User talk:ChicagoWikiEditor

Welcome!

Hello, ChicagoWikiEditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! RFD (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTR

But I did not add the false sales. :( Check again. All my editions had sources, I think it's wrong inflate. Sorry for something. Ross Lynch Lovers ^(msg) 13:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: My last edition with sources (here), the vandalism (here). Sorry. Ross Lynch Lovers ^(msg) 13:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never internally laughed so hard

I swear, MrMclovin's edit summaries on Cr1TiKaL are going down in Wikipedia history. There are probably angrier edit summaries out there, but that's the angriest I've seen so far. I've never internally laughed so hard in my life. L33tm4n (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L33tm4n: For sure, MrMclovin went on like an eight summary passionate rant. What's even funnier is that after all that, they will most likely be back under a new name, and for no other reason than being a brilliant genius, they will run back to the same articles and get banned again lol ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history at AnEsonGib shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DarkerthanTar (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkerthanTar: Annnnnd you're blocked. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the definition of singer-songwriter before making any more edits in this regard

"... the category is built on the folk-acoustic tradition, although this role has transmuted through different eras of popular music. Singer-songwriters often provide the sole accompaniment to an entire composition or song, typically using a guitar or piano. -- FMSky (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you're edits are factually wrong, thats all FMSky (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky: You ought to read the "Multi-tasking songwriters" section of the songwriters article, and cross reference that with what I told you about how separating the labels implies the artist writes music for others. Also educate yourself on the word "typically", specifically how it is a word that's without absolute explanation. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on the Juice WRLD talk page

There is an RfC ongoing about a topic which you have previously been involved in here. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodwinked

Hi - I'm the editor who wrote most of the Hoodwinked article and brought it to FA status a little over eight years ago. The less than $8 million budget was accepted during the review process that the article went through all those years ago, but I realize that sourcing could have been improved, so I did a little digging. A number of quality publications, such as Entertainment Weekly, The A.V. Club, and Tulsa World have given the film's budget as around $15 million, but during a 2009 interview, the film's director, Cory Edwards, stated that the actual budget was under $8 million. This article in The Sydney Morning Herald also gives $8 million as the budget. According to this article from Animation World Network, the "official company line" was that the film's budget was $15 million, but the actual budget was kept "under the radar", which probably explains why there are differing figures. I've expanded the production section to explain all of this and have updated the sourcing. --Jpcase (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hello ChicagoWikiEditor, just to invite you to leave a comment/vote for the second part of the RfC: Talk:Nicki Minaj#New proposed lead, as I want more experienced users to comment on an article with severe wp:own issues. Regards. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing content from leads

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: I have literally no idea what you're talking about and I don't think you know what you're talking about either. First of all, I am not genre warring or even making genre orientated edits. I simply removed an expired external link from the Cardi B article (what you're referring too). You should read the edit summaries next time, takes like three seconds. If you want Cardi B "rapper and actress" to be withstanding in the lead, you need to provide a reliable source for the latter before changing it back. Welcome to Wikipedia ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of your recent edits are removing content from genre-specific articles. These types of edits should be dicussed on the Talk Page first. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: No, they shouldn't and they won't be. I don't need to open a discussion to remove a broken external link or extracurricular career roles from lead of any article. You're more than welcome to open an RFC though and/or properly source it. Otherwise, move on from my my talk page. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McGregor

Hi. I have opened a discussion on the relevant talk page. It is reasonable to describe him as a professional boxer as his fight against Mayweather was one of the highest grossing of all time. I also think his whiskey venture makes it fair to describe him as a businessman. As per BRD, please don't revert again without discussion. Thanks. NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NEDOCHAN: I have opened a discussion with rfc. This is such a ridiculous statement, there will be majority consensus soon. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

clarification "actor" (adam lambert)

Hi. I was interested in knowing if there is a specific criteria for including actor in a lede - such as number of acting appearances etc. If not, since his career trajectory (and almost all of his pre-idol work) is moving towards projects that encompass more that releasing original albums/songs - why the need to remove it? Thanks. Jordan200 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jordan200: Sure, the “qualification” is that the lede should only feature roles most notable and as described by majority reliable provided sources. An overwhelming portion of Adam Lamberts filmography section features him in a non character role. If he were not a singer, he would not even have a Wikipedia page, hence he is not notable as an actor. The occupation infobox typically serves the purpose for lesser career fame contributions, across several hundred other articles. He does not have even a single decent supporting role as actor in any moderate level tv/film production and there are no reliable sources provided that would describe him as such. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for responding. I understand, I think he was considered a musical theater actor before appearing on american idol - he does have numerous roles in actual productions; TV i'd say the 5 ep arc as "elliot' in glee is prob the most substantive. absolutely true he would not have a wiki page if not for his singing. It would be good if this criteria were applied uniformly across pages though... If you remove "actor", unless/until there's something new, I won't touch it. Jordan200 (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hounding/Harassment

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make baseless accusations about me and stopped hounding me. I hope this is enough of a warning and there is no need to escalate into a user conduct dispute on you. Shexantidote (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shexantidote: You'll be blocked soon, you absolute bafoon. I've already opened a sockpuppet investigation on you, with evidence. I'll be looking out for your other accounts as well. I love getting people like you banned. Cheers. Now get off my talk page. Find a better hobby. You're so obvious and bad at what you do. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @ChicagoWikiEditor: I don't really get the term sockpuppet but I do hope a user conduct investigation goes unto you because you're completely hounding me Shexantidote (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]