User talk:Indagate

March 2022

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 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. Cardei012597 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "User 86 10 25 197", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it resembles an IP address. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Young Justice (TV series) 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. Pavlov2 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Pavlov2

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User 86 10 25 197. Pavlov2 (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why a sockpuppetry investigation is underway regarding you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Justice edit-warring

You need to stop doing reverting; you can be blocked from editing against policy even after one edit, and you're currently at two. You are new to Wikipedia, so I would urge you to self-revert and contribute to a discussion to build a consensus for the version you seem to think is perfectly acceptable. Reverting a policy-based removal because you personally feel something is not trivial is not a defense, and it almost always ends in either a block, a warning, or a loss of good faith with other editors because you won't talk things out on the talk page, as I've suggested to you twice. Don't be that contributor. Don't be the one who cannot edit collaboratively. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Please change your username. English Wikipedia's username policy doesn't allow people to use names that resemble IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, User 86 10 25 197, does not meet our username policy. Your username is the principal reason for the block. You are welcome to continue editing after you have selected a new username that meets the username policy guidelines, which are summarized below.

Per the username policy, a username should represent an individual and should not: represent a group or organization; be promotional; be misleading (such as indicating possession of special user rights or being a "Bot" account (unless approved for such purposes)); be offensive or otherwise disruptive. However, a username that contains the name of a organization and also identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87" is allowed, though, among others, the guidance on conflict of interest and the policy of paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Your requested new username cannot already be in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Indagate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Editor861025197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

No. Please pick a username that does not include a set of apparently random characters or digits. Yamla (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tried e-mailing for new username days ago but they rejected with reason "rejected until accusations are resolved" after it was closed User 86 10 25 197 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Indagate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

indagate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Renamed so unblocked. Please be careful, your behaviour so far has been inappropriate and if it continues, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. Please read WP:5P and in particular, WP:EW before editing further. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will read but have made many small uncontroversial mistakes, one on Young Justice I think is not trivial and one on DC list my edits made edit conform with MOS

Please refrain from making edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to The Martian (film), without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a type of change that other editors should be allowed to comment on. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Seems minor amend, just changing the numbers from raw numbers to pull from Wikidata so updated by a bot, same as other pages, not a big change that needed talk page discussion first I thought Indagate (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it needs to be discussed first. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why first? Minor amend, the viewer sees the same numbers, more likely to be up to date so accurate Indagate (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why first? Because that is the whole point of collaborative editing, Indagate. In Wikipedia, you must edit with others to find agreement or, at the very least, a middle ground. And the agreements must be based upon Reliable Sources.

For example, in the Young Justice article, I had removed examples of 'crossovers' because they seemed trivial - something we don't allow here in Wikipedia. Now, you may think they aren't trivial - that they are important in some way. When we disagree on a statement's triviality, we look to reliable sources as the deciding factor. Does a RS think this is important enough to mention? If so, then it is not trivial. If it cannot be found through RS sources, though, no amount of argument is going to be enough to warrant inclusion. Our personal opinions on the subject are immaterial; we follow the sources.

I hope that explains matters better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Jack~~ FlightTime, I believe you are engaging in a WP:BITE behavior. Articles are, by default, edited boldly, i.e. without prior discussion. It's just as justified for inexperienced editors to make edits they see are improvements to the encyclopedia without establishing consensus first as for veterans to revert them. It is reverting the revert back that is out of line, and we have long-established policies around that. Just apply the BRD cycle. Nardog (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC) I misidentified who I was referring to. Apologies. Nardog (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those situations are different as Flighttime was saying I should've discussed, then edited rather than editing, then discussing ilke you and I did. They seemed to revert for the sole reason of not dicussing before editing Indagate (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which runs directly counter to some of the longest-established policies and how things get done on Wikipedia. I've nominated the warning for deletion. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop changing stable Rotten Tomatoes numbers to a templated version of it? This makes it harder to watch for vandalism, without ading any value to enwiki. There is consensus that Wikidata should only be used for infoboxes (sparingly) and some external links templates, but not in the body of articles like you are doing here. The above discussion should perhaps have indicated that this was controversial, but you continued anyway. Fram (talk) 07:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been such consensus RottenBot wouldn't have been allowed to run. Nardog (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rottenbot changed the contents of the articles directly, it didn't add a Wikidata template? The consensus I talk about is not "RT data are immutable and may never be updated", but "Wikidata should not be used directly in the body of articles". Fram (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it did. There are thousands of articles currently using {{RT data}} in prose, added by the bot, which I'm sure would have all been removed by now if there had been consensus against it. But, as you point out below, the bot at least updated the scores on Wikidata as it added them. Nardog (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I looked at the first trial edits, where it didn't: apparently it changed later on. Anyway, as BRFA always says: they only look if the bot is technically correct, not if their edits actually have consensus. It is very easy for bot edits to stay under the radar, that doesn't mean that their edits should have been made. Fram (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But where is the consensus you've been referring to? You need to at least provide a link if you're mass reverting. Nardog (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikidata#Inserting Wikidata values into Wikipedia articles: Wikidata is allowed in infoboxes (sparingly), but not in article text. Fram (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a current discussion regarding its use at WP:FILM, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_Wikidata_and_current_releases, plus previous discussions which established consensus for its use. Timing is disputed but don't think I amended any articles from last couple years yesterday. Indagate (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link not relevant, seems to be regarding linking to Wikidata like wikilinks and external links, not using them as part of template. What is relevant is the discussions at WP:FILM, and bot approval which has consensus part of. Indagate (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is explicitly also about using Wikidata as a method of getting data in the body, the running text, of an article. And bot approval only looks at the technical aspects, it is up to the bot owner to get consensus for the actual edit though. Getting a bot approved does not mean that the changes that bot does have any consensus at all (though obviously clearly vandalistic bots would get turned down, but not this type of thing). And at Wp:Film, the discussion is ongoing, and even then they can't override a global consensus at the local level. Fram (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't see like it, talks about linking to Wikidata, not using in template. One of the requirements for getting approval is consensus so it wouldn't be approved without it, WP:BOTREQUIRE. Discussions have ended, current one has no consensus regarding time after release but seems to be consensus regarding use overall. Indagate (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia" (bolded in original). A later RfC also excluded linking to Wikidata, in addition to the above. Fram (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the bot doesn't seem to update scores, only add entries to Wikidata if doesn't already exist. Not sure how to make bot update scores, @Notacardoor can advise further on that hopefully Indagate (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An example: on Geostorm, you changed the manual RT data from 1 February 2022, to Wikidata data from October 2021. How is this an improvement? Fram (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is one example, there are many others if you look,[1] I've seen multiple instances of this already. The regressions have to stop. If Indagate is not willing to check and update the Wikidata first before adding {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} templates then they should stop adding the template. The supposed benefit of this template was less churn, not more. Despite the good faith efforts to use newer templates these regressions are disruptive and it is not the responsibility of other editors to fix the regressions that Indagate has repeatedly and carelessly introduced. -- 109.78.210.152 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films/sandbox

I have moved your article to draftspace as it appears to be used as a space for editing tests. Please use Draftspace or your sandbox for future editing tests. Thank you. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 14:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it was ok to create sandbox for that page to edit part of extended protected page so edit request is clear, will use user sandbox next time Indagate (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass editing

You're continuing to introduce mass edits and edit war when you're not getting your way, the number of warnings above should have been a learning experience not an incentive to double down. These are featured articles, the references should be consistent and publisher is not used. THe fact that there is a "publisher_hide" option is alone enough evidence that your way is not the only way. Also the cinemascore ref you are brute forcing into articles does not work consistently when archived, it just re-loads the initial page so you're replacing good refs with broken ones. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkwarriorblake Please see WP:OWN, you seem to revert most edits on a few pages. The archive link works for me, the search shows same as live page, so not broken. References should be consistent across articles regardless of whether they're featured or not. Please be civil. Indagate (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That directly contradicts WP: OTHERSTUFF. You changing an article, doesn't mean that all the other 100 million articles should follow your format. The references are consistent within the articles and you are the one introducing inconsistencies. If the archive doesn't work for me, it won't work for others, so when we have a hard copy of a score, reported by a third party, that doesn't rely on a search engine that somehow is gonna check a database on a website once it's dead or the code that operates it becomes obsolete, the third party hard copy trumps the cinemascore website. This is not the first time you've done this, been reverted with an explanation, and then just put it back because you think your way is the right way. That is WP: OWN, not reverting your technical vandalism on Featured Articles where standards are actually high. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF concerns deletion discussions of articles, not citations. Don't know why it doesn't work for you when it does for me on multiple browsers and devices. Again, please be civil, saying edits that are in good-faith and designed to be constructive even if you disagree should not be referred to as vandalism. Standards being high should be a reason to have more information in citations and references of a later date Indagate (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff is a general "what about x" policy, such as saying "I've added publisher to other articles so all articles should do it". And Metacritic, for example, has been owned by a group of friends, Cnet, CBS Corporation, and now Red Ventures. What is the reader getting from knowing the owner of these things? And if you apply publisher to say 250+ references, what do they gain when that info is outdated as websites and businesses are constantly purchased, absorbed, merged, split, etc and someone isn't going around to ten thousand articles to change it? Nothing is gained by adding publisher, but absolutely publisher should not be added when the other 300 references do not have it, and the other 300 references do not have it because it is not pertinent or useful information for 1, and is directly against the cite web template guidelines for 2.

As for the cinemascore archive, this link does not work. If you type in a name of a film it just reloads the start page, it doesn't bring up the film. It. Does. Not. Work. And this is on Microsoft Edge, so if it doesn't work for me it probably isn't working for others either, which makes it useless in a Featured Article as a reliable source should the original company/site die.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy, essay, important distinction. The point of having a Cite Metacritic template is partly just that issue you describe, if the publisher changes then it can be changed across many articles with one edit to the template rather than having to edit the articles with references to Metacritic at all. Cite web says using website and publisher is redundent in many cases, I'd say that's because can be the same so would be repeated, examples in edit were not the same or similar, the example they give is for Metacritic which was part of my edit so not a combination they think is redundant. Information from a reference shouldn't be removed just because other references don't have string. The publisher string helps add context about the reference. Indagate (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Free Guy

You were right on Free Guy; good revert. I forgot that things in the summary aren't always cited in the summary, if they are cited later. Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You've already been warned about disruptive editing, so consider this your final warning. Moving articles that have existed in mainspace by experienced editors for months and are already reviewed should not be moved to draft space. If you think it's inappropriate, take it to WP:AFD. Further, any more disruption on your end will result in a block, as I will take you to ANI and request one. Last, I strongly advise you disclose your previous account ASAP. CUPIDICAE💕 13:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article to draft using Twinkle so correct process is not disruptive, please be civil and assume good faith.

All news articles I've seen about the show are saying it's announced, a fact already in mainspace at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HBO_Max_original_programming#Reality_2, don't need an article that just says same thing regardless of number of sources

WP:NFF is for films but says article shouldn't be created unless principal photography has started Indagate (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. You should only move recently created articles from main space to Draft space. The general rule of thumb is articles that were created 6 months or earlier. Articles that have existed in main space for years should not be Draftified. Also, Twinkle isn't generally used for moving articles to Draft space, there are scripts that exist that are most commonly used by page patrollers. If you want to know more about them, please ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, didn't realise that but article existed just under 6 months. I just draftified article that looked nowhere near ready for mainspace, like wouldn't pass draft review process Indagate (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cite CinemaScore

Template:Cite CinemaScore has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section vandalism: "Has a percentage"

Please note that there is a persistent vandal with a poor grasp of English grammar. You encountered this person recently[2] and reverted them. They've been at this for years and the admins play whack-a-mole and revert all their edits from their ever changing locations. They frequently replace good references with worse ones as you have seen. They quite often remove any mention of PostTrak while doing so. They have never responded to any comments or edit summaries to my knowledge.

I asked and an admin he explained it a bit[3] but she's been at it since 2017 and you can safely revert those edits on sight. Unfortunately if you cannot cleanly revert those edits you may need to check the article history and try to find the edit (because of the Cinemascore reference vandalism and PostTrak vandalism) but I understand it is a hassle we would all prefer not to have to deal with. -- 109.78.199.198 (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]