User talk:DisuseKid

Welcome!

Hello, DisuseKid, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bfpage |leave a message 13:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DisuseKid, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi DisuseKid!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Red links

Hi! I read the summary to your revert.

Please consider that red links are often a good thing. The purpose is to encourage article creation. We want people to write an article about the area library system. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone needs to create an article of it first before it can be put in, otherwise it will never be done. DisuseKid (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's circular reasoning. There is a reason why red links exist. Red links say "an article doesn't exist here yet, but it should! Create me!" People can, and do, create articles when they're spurred on by red links. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of my edit on jurassic world

Excuse me but why did you just do that? Wkc19 :) (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

== Deletion on Charleston church shooting ==You win, deletion Nazi. I'll do something fun while you delete good edits for no reason except ego. I see you Ok, don't you have video games to play? deleted my recent additions to the 'manifesto' section, which I inserted after the recommendations of an admin, MelanieN. Although it duplicates material on Dylann Roof, some users feel this context is necessary and we are trying to reach consensus. Would you care to weigh in on the Talk page? —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my entry on Chattanooga, despite citations. You said the figure I used, Evangelist Franklin Graham, is not notable. This is opinion, as he is notable for his statements and in many news outlets. I hope we can reach an agreement.

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Jurassic World 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 get 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. JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have broken the WP:3RR rule at Jurassic World, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DisuseKid reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: ), There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you respond and agree to stop warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest commenting in the above-linked AN/EW thread rather than here, for the record. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! - 220 of ^Borg 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category removal at Charleston church shooting

Why do you think your edit summary has anything to do with the categories? Also, heads up that you are now at three reverts, and with your account being reviewed at EW/N a fourth would likely result in a block even for a minor violation. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is part of a mass removal; please stop and get consensus first. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Please avoid making comments like these. They violate the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL and don't do anything to promote collaborative editing. Thanks. —Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at 2012 Aurora shooting 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 get 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.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for 2015 Chattanooga shootings

I applaud your efforts on this article. Do me a favour: can you nominate this article to be promoted to "Did you know" project? It won't be featured In the news, but you might have enough time to nominate it for DYK. I can't do it myself without reviewing another article, so I figured that you haven't done DYK before and may be able to have it promoted without trouble. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know how to do that, though. I'm just here to edit. DisuseKid (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For rules, go to WP:DYK. For process, go to template talk:did you know#Instructions for nominators and insert "2015 Chattanooga shootings" in the box, which is above "Create nomination" button. Alternatively, you can go to Main Page and click "Nominate an article", so you'll go to the same page. Still confused? You're welcome to ask me. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @George Ho: I have nominated it for DYK on your suggestion. Any alternate hook suggested? Faizan (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section editing preferred

When you edit an article you should use the "Edit" link at the top of the section you wish to edit. It makes it difficult to track edits and significant changes when you click the primary edit link at the top of the page and bring the entire article into the work area and make changes to multiple sections. grifterlake (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical citations.

I also used to wonder. Turns out, people copy and paste the templates. I suppose they're vertical there just to show the fields better. Thanks for shrinking those, they can get in the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, July 20, 2015 (UTC)

There are various home-grown software tools for creating references and I always assumed that was the format chosen by whoever created one of those tools. One of the tenets of the Wikipedia culture: personal freedom trumps consistency. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Plot section

"But the shawarma scene was not mentioned in the plot section." I only mentioned that part from "The Avengers" as a visual example compared to something regarding importance in the film's plot! I didn't literally put it in the plot section for Jurassic World, though at the same time I'm really Outraged as to what's important to the film and what's not important especially if it's a mid-credit or post-credits scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Awarded for tireless and judicious editing of 2015 Chattanooga shootings as the story developed

E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the header.

It said "Motive". I don't get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

You said this in your edit summary: "The first one should always be in full, then the initials." The header had the first mention of the full name and then the initials. That's what I meant. DisuseKid (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the first paragraphs of the article, that's the lead. Headers are the section titles. If you don't mean that, I still don't get it.

I don't know if it's a written rule, but it seems standard to introduce terms (Wikilinks and initials) in the lead and the body. The lead's more of a short version of the whole article than the beginning of it. But if you think the mention in the lead counts as the first mention, then the one you changed shouldn't be linked, either. Just plain FBI.

I don't really care, just a bit confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, July 24, 2015 (UTC)

Then I meant the lead. DisuseKid (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson

If you are going to remove the citations from the lead of this article, please be sure to restore the citations elsewhere in the article in such a way as to source the information that appears in the lead. For example, Anderson's birth date as well as the actual date and circumstances of the abduction are now completely unsourced. General Ization ^Talk 03:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think we need to have a talk. The right approach to this situation is not to remove content (e.g., a birth date) as unsourced when you were the one who removed the otherwise valid sources from the content. You can either restore it to the lead (citations in the lead are actually not at all uncommon), or you can reintroduce the content and its source somewhere else in the article. But you should not remove the content (which in this case is relevant and significant as it confirms the victim's age at the time of the abduction). General Ization ^Talk 03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know where to put it. There wasn't supposed to be any citations in the lead. DisuseKid (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removing references

Why are you removing references from the leads of articles? Did you just decide on your own to ignore what has been done for many years now, and is done in every article on Wikipedia, and do it your own way instead? Dream Focus 03:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk kept doing it to the articles he's edited on, and I believe someone mentioned some policy on Wikipedia that I forgot. DisuseKid (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]