This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.

User talk:4TheWynne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gary Oldman[edit]

So I'm outvoted on the Hell's Kitchen stuff - fair enough. "Identified in the late 1980s with the 'Brit Pack', the critic Roger Ebert..." does not make sense, though. Gary Oldman, not Roger Ebert, was part of the Brit Pack. Please alter to the correct phrasing of "Identified in the late 1980s with the 'Brit Pack', he was described by critic Roger Ebert...". Cheers. (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the previous wording was also very much grammatically correct – just more advanced – and what you suggested was not necessarily "the correct phrasing", but because you asked, I've gone and changed that part of the edit. In the future, this kind of issue should really be brought up on the article's talk page, rather than user talk pages. Thanks. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The name of the country of origin of Natalie's Portman greatgrandparents[edit] On that page it is written that her grandparents born in 20`s years of 20h Century were from Jewish families coming from Russia. In that case, the parents of her grandparents had to give a birth in maximum 10 year old. Because earlier there was no country as Russia, but was Russian Empire that had hundreds of other nations in every governorate under it`s crown. I just suggest you to change the name from Russia, on Russian Empire that is all. That would be historically and chronologically correct. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacuki21 (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Sacuki21, you need to brush up on your research yourself, instead of telling me what is "historically and chronologically correct". It is never actually stated when Portman's maternal grandfather's family moved from the country – the family could have moved when the country was known as the Russian Empire (1721–1917), the Russian Republic (1917), the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (1917–1922), or the Soviet Union (1922–1991) – and as a result, it is easier and probably less of a hassle to leave it simply as Russia. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

James Franco Edit[edit]

Joshua, first off, thank you for all you do for Wikipedia. Secondly, I apologize if you believe I was violating any rules, however, I am merely trying to add his acting studio to his personal page. I don't believe I was citing a poorly referenced article, as it came from and it a quite a reputable source. If you believe you can assist me in properly adding Studio 4 to his page, I would be very appreciative. Thanks.Stevenanderson (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Stevenanderson, I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I can see, nobody's told you or warned you that the source that you added wasn't reputable, and your edit still stands at the page – nobody seems to have a problem with it. I don't know what you want me to do. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User Adhamh777's continued disruptive editing[edit]

I went to Adhamh777's Talk page and noticed you had left a comment for him in December about disruptive editing. User Adhamh777 has since made disruptive edits to the Eddie Irvine article.

The Eddie Irvine article was protected until recently because of people editing his nationality. Not even a month has passed since the protection was lifted, and user Adhamh777 has edited the nationality of Eddie Irvine in the article, ignoring the comments in the article, and the Talk page discussions on that very topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I just looked through user Adhamh777's recent contributions, and he has made numerous edits regarding nationality that have all been reverted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting me to this, but I don't think it should be a huge issue now – I've given him another warning, but he hasn't made any edits for four days, so that should indicate that there's not much to worry about at the moment. If something else pops up, though, let me know. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Prototype (band)[edit]

You undid my edit regarding adding Sam Aliano to the band lineup. Sam was in the band, I should know since we hired him at the time (I'm in the band). You are correct in that he did not get credited in any official releases, but he did play a show with the band and recorded pre-production demos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDM (talkcontribs) 19:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Who am I talking to here? Anyone can just say that they're "in the band", regardless of how much or how little inside knowledge they might have. It's not so much that I don't believe you, I'm just doing my job my checking – I'm a massive fan of the band, after all. My other question is, if Aliano really was part of the lineup at some point (I had assumed he was nothing more than a session/touring member), why has it taken this long for someone to bring it up on Wikipedia? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hardwired... to Self-Destruct sales[edit]

You reverted my edit at Hardwired... to Self-Destruct. I can't find any information on the Internet about the one million copies sold. Here it is said that they sold 516,000 worldwide by the end of December, and that info is also in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeadsOff (talkcontribs) 13:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

HeadsOff, the Certifications section of the article lists the certified units/sales, and the total of these sales is over one million. The reason why I reverted your edit and gave you a warning is because you really should have checked and done a sweep of the article before adding a "citation needed" tag, as it was unnecessary. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


It's like playing Whack-a-mole with that Aries sockpuppet. You never know when his head will pop up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fyunck(click), tell me about it. Looks like he got me too. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Even so, no need to keep reverting them on their own page so fast :) it's keeping them out of mainspace and off TPs that's important. IMHO of course. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, unfortunately, this guy needs to be kept in check, and if that means reverting him on his own talk page as well, that's what I'll do – that's not an opinion, that's a promise. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You have clearly never read WP:DENY then... or WP:TPO for that matter. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I have, but not for a while. I'm just trying to make sure that admins are notified, that's all – I'm not just reverting for the sake of it. Nice way to celebrate three years on the site, too, if I might add. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't exaggerate: your first edit isn't until tomorrow :p ;) all I'm saying is that, the bloke is now blocked and they're blocked because of this rather than all the reverting; know what I mean? Just saying, there are different ways of fighting these things, and dependant on the circs, some are more effective than others. On a lighter note, well done on (tommorow's!) birthday.. have a cold one on me :) O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 12:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind for next time. Cheers, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Wanted to Talk about the changes I made[edit]

Hey buddy, I'm very new on editing on wikipedia. I just received message about my edits and they're reverted. I'm not sure why that happened. Can you please give me some suggestions on what I can add or what I can't add? My perspective was good to add the source but it seems I was wrong. Just wanted to know so that I can contribute in a great way.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakibul.odesk (talkcontribs) 20:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Rakibul.odesk, sorry for my late reply – I can see that you've come here with good intentions. Admittedly, the titles of the sources that you were adding made them look a bit suspicious to begin with, but all in all, the main reason why they were reverted is because they weren't needed. There are a lot of things on this site that require sources, but this isn't one of them, as the information there is made obvious by watching the film's trailer. Thanks for at least trying to help, anyway. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Good work buddy! I saw your contributions and amazed. Wanna make some like you. Keep it up Rakibul.odesk (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The Fate of the Furious[edit]

Friend: please don't use the revert tool as a meat-cleaver when a scalpel will do. Were all of my edits to the plot without merit and irrelevant? I'd ask as a favor in the future to consider editing edits instead of mashing the revert button. It's a newly-released movie, and much of the plot section is still vague, and I apologize that my contributions were deemed too verbose. Please also consider whether the entire article will collapse if the plot section is 8 words over a suggested guideline.

Okay -- I've had my say and I'll leave it there; I'm giving up on further edits to the page as it's clear to me that they aren't really welcomed. Thanks Fmitterand (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fmitterand, that won't be necessary. Having created the article with Captain Assassin!, one of my sole purposes is to try and maintain the article as best as possible – I have a very specific vision – and not just in the newly-created plot section. I don't just smash the revert button (that's what pissed me off more than anything), and if you look at the page's history – from top to bottom – you'll find that I've done more for the article than anyone. Now, to address the edits themselves, you've obviously done it in two parts: "mysterious video on a smart phone" and "zero-day exploits". The rest is just extra words that, as explained, aren't needed. The audience isn't shown what's on the phone (and you think "much of the plot section is still vague"?), and the zero-day exploits is, similarly, too wordy (for most readers, anyway) – "hacking into [the cars]" is enough. I'm not unreasonable, but I do know what I'm doing; I went through the same process with the Furious 7 article, which is the only article I've edited more than this one. Regarding your last point, it's really not hard to follow the guideline (within reason), and with respect, most readers will probably care more about the plot section, along with lead and cast, than anything else. That's why they are the three sections that I edit once the film is in cinemas. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
In light of all that, I say let's just get the mods to lock this bad boy down; no need to allow Philistines like myself to mess with perfection! Okay, that was sarcastic, but I get it: you thought my contributions were entirely unconstructive and should have been thrown out instead of making an effort to improve or change them -- a tactic with which I disagree. As I said, I'm moving on; it's just not worth the effort to improve articles that are jealously protected. Wikipedia doesn't work well when users feel/act like they own certain articles and thus are more-worthy of saying what's valid to include and what's not. And it drives good editors away and kills collaboration. Fmitterand (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Fmitterand, I am in no way trying to condone your edits or make out that I own the article (nothing wrong with me trying to prove my credentials). I can see that you have come with good intentions, and majority of the editors on this site aren't like that. You don't need to jump to conclusions or make sarcastic (or worse) comments – this is nothing more than a disagreement, and there's no need to exaggerate or overreact to my feedback. But if that's the way that you see it, then I won't bother you about it. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Christian Bale[edit]

I have noted your comment to me on Christian Bale's talk page, and I see that you have taken exception to my questioning why and / or how one single person can place a lock on an article while it is still under heated discussion. You have responded to my "objection" in what I would consider to be a fairly reactionary manner. I also see very clearly from your own talk page that you are very active in editing and reverting other people's contributions, with most of the feedback falling on the negative side.

Let me say that I can easily make myself an admin. For many years, I have been content to merely contribute money and knowledge. However, if you wish to engage in such a contest, then please, by all means, let us engage. If you care about WP and what it stands for, then let's simply do that. If this becomes personal then we certainly have ways of resolving those types of issues right here at WP. If your goal is making WP a better online encyclopedia, then we have the same goal and I have no quarrel with you. If you do not share that goal, and are only attempting to initiate trouble, then I will most certainly accommodate you in that effort.

Sincerely, Tjp1962 (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Tjp1962, I'm going to ignore most of what you've just said and get straight to the heart of the matter: saying that Bale is Welsh because he was born in Wales is original research. This is not the first time that I have said this to another user, and at the rate that the discussion is going, it most certainly won't be the last. Please understand that this discussion has been happening on and off for years – the current section on the talk page is not the only discussion that has taken place regarding Bale's nationality. Find multiple reliable sources stating that Bale is Welsh, and then we're getting somewhere (but it probably still won't be changed anyway). Now, I would be able to understand why you would "question why and/or how one single person can [protect a page] while it is still under heated discussion" if you were a new user, but you're not. If IPs keep on changing the nationality on a WP:BLP article without providing reliable sources, users like myself will revert them until an administrator places semi-protection on the article to prevent IPs from editing the article. You obviously wanted to change the nationality, but couldn't, and wanted to know why – that is why. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 09:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Fate of the Furious Edit[edit]


I tend to do a brief perusal of the movie summaries on Wiki of movies I watch the day of and decided to look at it for Fate of the Furious. I felt that some of the parts were very much out of order and didn't flow to me quite right. I added maybe several sentences or three to add more context to the situation to make it feel more viable, if that makes sense. If I did something wrong, please tell me as I do not do these often. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr33nappleboy (talkcontribs) 08:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Gr33nappleboy, everything was in order and flowed just fine – I don't know where you're getting that from, so I'm going to disregard that. The main reason why it wasn't necessary (and I understand if you didn't know this) is because, if you have a look at the note at the top of the section (when you edit the "Plot" section), you'll find that there is a word limit of 700; the word count was at about 690 at the time. Additionally, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I get the word count but I know for sure that at least an event or two was out of place and the situation wasn't fully depicted Gr33nappleboy (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Gr33nappleboy, I assure you, nothing was out of place, and your edit did nothing to fix it – it only made it wordier and, as a result, messier. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For one, Dom was not challenged by Fernando. Letty told Dom that his cousin was in trouble and Dom challenged Fernando to a race. Second, Cipher's hacking of the cars was not meant to facilitate Dom's escape. It was meant in order to wreak havoc and, in the process, pin the Minister of Defense where he was. Third, their vehicles were not modified and not sure who the heck Petty is. They got the cars from the hold provided by Nobody. Sure I may have made it slightly wordier but those are for sure the incorrect parts of the plot summary that I just pointed out Gr33nappleboy (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Liam Neeson[edit]

Why was my edit removed, when it corrected a minor flaw. He is against the gun right allowing one to carry a gun freely. Which I edited it to. What it says now is that the gun right is unrestricted, but although there are few restrictions, there are some restrictions, and he doesn't say he's against I unrestricted, he's against it freely as it already isn't completely unrestricted — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Foo Fighters Change[edit]

I have read your message, and I had forgot to cite a source. Apologies, I will make sure of it.

- Thanks,

T.smith098 — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.smith098 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Bridges movie edited out, why?[edit]

Hello 4TheWynne, how come you removed Jeff Bridges' movie Against All Odds (1984) from the 1st paragraph? (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Metallica chronology[edit]

Hi. How is it disruptive to add Lulu to Metallica's chronology? It's part of their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveng (talkcontribs) 04:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Archiveng, the chronology refers to the studio album chronology, not all releases – the other album articles demonstrate this. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lulu was a studio album! Perhaps you should edit the info box to have a heading more specific to your intention than "chronology." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveng (talkcontribs) 04:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lulu was a collaborative album, and that wasn't the only change that you made, either – you know full well that Beyond Magnetic is not a studio album, either. Last I checked, you can't change the heading in question to "studio album chronology" from "chronology" – and not because it's "my intention" – so no. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 04:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You realize the Black Flag chronology mixes EPs and LPs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveng (talkcontribs) 05:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
A lot of other articles probably do that, too – but the Metallica article is a featured article, as are a lot of its album articles, so I don't care. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Lars Ulrich Awards and Honors Edit[edit]

Hello. I am the user who made the edit to the Awards and Honors section of Lars Ulrich's page last night (apologies for not doing it using my account, I forgot to log in), and I have a question regarding the reversal of my edit. I fail to see how correcting misinformation on the page isn't constructive. Lars was not Knighted by Margrethe II, he was knighted by Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, on Monday, June 12, 2017. My source was clearly credited, and if Loudwire isn't a credible source (which makes no sense, since they're one of the biggest heavy metal news websites out there) then there are multiple other articles which state the same thing that I did. So why was the change reverted? Please message me back as soon as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneJewishMetalhead (talkcontribs) 19:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

ThatOneJewishMetalhead, if you look beyond the fact that you probably used the Loudwire article because you like the site and/or access it regularly – however credible it may be – and actually read what both it and the original article both say, you'll find that they both source the same Danish article, which supports the information that you changed from and not that of the Loudwire article. Therefore, as you changed sourced information without checking – which you call "correcting misinformation" – I perceived it as unconstructive. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the article clearly states that it wasn't the Queen that Knighted him, it was Prince Frederik, and it even has a picture of him and Prince Frederik shortly after he was given the Cross. The only reason that they linked to that Danish article was for context as to why he was Knighted. You can see the picture here: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatOneJewishMetalhead (talkcontribs) 01:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

ThatOneJewishMetalhead, I know about the picture – I already liked it on Instagram – but that doesn't change the fact that the information in the Danish article supports the original CBS article, not the Loudwire article. I know exactly what the Loudwire article says – I can read (and use Google Translate, for that matter) – but the article actually mentions Wikipedia, which is suspicious enough in itself. If you are right and "there are multiple other articles which state the same thing that you did", then by all means, bring it up on the talk page. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Instrument links[edit]

Hello. I apologize for those edits to Metallica and Megadeth. How may I better myself then?

MetalSword (talk) 04:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

MetalSword, instrument links aren't necessary, at least not on (main) band pages. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC) is a very reliable source[edit] is very credible and reliable source just ask Jew Or Not

No. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate warning[edit]

Hi 4TheWynne could you please explain why you issued this completely inappropriate warning - almost a threat - to the IP user:

Hi edit, was good, and not at all disruptive. He simply replaced one word with an equivalent. And for what it's worth, I hate the use of "authored" as well; it's verb misuse. Thanks, MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

MidnightBlueMan, that's your interpretation/opinion. The term "authored" is used very commonly around these kind of articles, particularly when applied to celebrities who only write one or two books in their lifetime (such as an autobiography), and it's just better English than "wrote". 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Regardless, the warning you issued was way over the top for an edit that was neither vandalism nor disruptive. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
MidnightBlueMan, I perceived it as disruptive, for the reasons stated above, and the term "vandalism" was never used. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Following on from MidnightBlueMan's findings, could you also explain the purpose of this warning over this edit. You reverted my edit and then accusing me of making disruptive edits, threatening me with being blocked etc over a "misleading" edit summary which if you used your common sense you could see the edit summary was a mistake but the edit was clearly a good faith minor edit that didn't require being reverted. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Mandy Moore changes[edit]

Sorry, forgot to add source. Reverted changes, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Reverted changes, however"? As explained in my most recent edit summary, the source is needed to prove that the film is in production, not to prove that Moore's involved in it. Otherwise, for all we know, it could be falling under WP:CRYSTAL. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Linkin Park[edit]

Stop adding the timeline to the bands, main page. A small list of examples; Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Rainbow, KISS, Great White, Korn, L.A. Guns, Megadeth. I'll stop here, this list can be expanded if you're still not convinced. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started here. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Lead genre tinkering and removing the notice on AiC page[edit]

This edit clearly shows that you're the one who did the disruptive editing in the first place. So, be careful next time when you point your finger at people who are interested in properly contributing to the article. --Oderinnn (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion started --Oderinnn (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


Dear Wynne, DragonForce have themselves said to be doing progressive and thrash metal in their albums for the 2nd time now. For genres, you don't really need a source anyway, because a genre is a fact, not an opinion.

And you're the same guy who kept insisting like crazy that Gee Anzalone doesn't sing months ago, only to be proven wrong big league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the band themselves say – if you're going to be adding sources that haven't already been in the infobox for a long period of time, you not only need sources, but you need to discuss on the talk page first (and don't even think about talking to me like a new user, or else you won't get any level of cooperation from me). I never knew what the Reaching into Infinity liner notes said, as I don't own the CD, but if they're sourced and Anzalone's said to be doing backing vocals, then that's fine, and I've already gone on the record as saying that. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I have just given you a final warning for genre warring. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
TerminatorZXY, further, particularly when it comes to the rather constructive back-and-forth fixing that we're trying to do at Valley of the Damned, you need to stop being so challenging/confrontational in your edit summaries. For the last time, I don't own any of their CDs (I own their full catalogue digitally); just because this is the case, you don't need to keep on making it all about yourself just because you claim to own a heap of their CDs. What we're trying to do is really good, but you can just as easily ruin it by not responding well to my feedback/edits, both in your edits and edit summaries, as has been the case in recent days. You're already on your last chance for genre warring, as per above, so I don't want you to ruin it for yourself. Additionally, what you've said in your talk page query about the demo is valid, but the rest is not, as the re-release of an album would not get its own article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Booklets are a great source of information. Why should I stop challenging it though? You're the one who's challenging me in the first place. Me having their CDs is pretty relevant, not because I have them, but because you don't have them. If this was about myself, I wouldn't be editing the wikipedia page in the first place because from it I get nothing. Am I ruining it for myself? Why would I be wasting my time if I'd wanted to make this all about myself? I'd be wasting my time elsewhere if I wanted fame and glory. I'm pointing out I have more information on a certain topic. TerminatorZXY 11:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You saying, "Me having their CDs is pretty relevant, not because I have them, but because you don't have them" is making it about yourself, like it or not. Why does the fact that I don't own their CDs make it "pretty relevant"? Again, I still own their music, and having their music in CD form doesn't make a huge difference. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Chester mural[edit]

What did I do wrong? Please elaborate.... I just added a painting of Chester because it was kind of a homage paid to the artist... Please check pages like Eminem which also include such... LP4Ever (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

LP4Ever, that's on Eminem's own article, not elsewhere. If you want to put that mural on Bennington's own article, I won't stop you (although it still might not even be allowed), but it doesn't need to go on the Linkin Park article. That article is about the band, not its recently-deceased lead vocalist. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Linkin Park sales[edit]

Today I change the source for Linkin Park's 75m-claim in their profile with a new source which is exactly state their albums and single sales at 75 million. Previously the source from The Independent state their sales at 70m albums and 30m singles, which is un-reliable. Please look at this list List of best-selling music artists, their name will be placed on the list with 75m claim. Please look at the TALK PAGE section and read the Linkin Park item, you will understand that Linkin Park will become one of the world's best selling artists when they have enough certification sales within a few weeks. Feel free if you want to comment and advise some opinion in that list. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That hasn't yet been confirmed, and one source stating as much isn't going to be enough to get it on the list straight away – and if you know that they're not there yet, then you know to wait. But saying "Having them on the list is very good to increase the reputation and reliability of the list" is just wrong... 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
About my statement Having them on the list is very good to increase the reputation and reliability of the list wrong or not, that's my own statement in that discussion. You don't have to agree with it, when Linkin Park finally join the list with 75m-claim. I will bring the list into their profile and cementing their status as one of the world best-selling artists like other artists who's already join the list.Politsi (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It was an unnecessary statement, whatever the forum, which didn't help the discussion. You're speaking in a very promotional manner, which you need to be careful of – you are a very opinionative editor who can let that side get the better of you sometimes (like at the Maria Sharapova article last year, which was the other extreme). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
That's your business if you feel my statement unnecessary. As long you're still cooperate with other editor to make the editing in wikipedia reliable. But if you start thinking that you are the best editor to say something or editing something in Wikipedia. You better look yourself before you teaching other editor how to behave. This is my last posting in this section. Again, when Linkin Park already include officially in that List. I will bring that list to their profile. Politsi (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You're back at it again it seems[edit]

How do you justify this?. Since there's no consensus yet. --Oderinnn (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oderinnn, that is what WP:BOLD is for, as per my edit summary – please familiarise yourself with the guideline before having another crack at me, as you will find that I have actually done nothing wrong. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hardwired ...To Self- Destruct Singles[edit]

Lords of Summer was released as a single a day before the albums release. So, it should still count as a single for the album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A7X4Life (talkcontribs) 01:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

A7X4Life, you got a reliable source for that? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC Timeline[edit]

Please voice your opinion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Music#RfC_Musical_band_member_timelines. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Metallica markup[edit]

@Norschweden: @4TheWynne: The hidden comments on Metallica are part of Wiki markup. Please see Help:Wiki markup Invisible text (comments). 4TheWynne is correct in his edits. Hidden comments that can only be seen in the edit window are part of Wikipedia's instructions to editors. I will also leave this note on each of your talk pages. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Ewan McGregor[edit]

Good day. I saw you edited the page and took the audiobook I included out. Well, I wasn't sure in terms of sources. I found the audiobook on Amazon - and I took the ISBN number from there. But I wasn't sure if that would count as an source? Thanks for your care. Robudor (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello there[edit]

I wanted to ask how did you make your wikipedia page? How did you do it? I would like to know. Also cool achievements. That sounds a lot like my own life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiegolf55 (talkcontribs) 14:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Okiegolf55, that's cool – I've literally just added a heap more to my user page, so impeccable timing. If you want to create your user page, simply click on your username – which I've linked (should currently be a redlink) – and create away. Also, at talk pages, don't forget to sign your comments with "~~~~". 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice, How did you add your profile picture? I'd like to know that as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiegolf55 (talkcontribs) 22:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Okiegolf55, go to Wikipedia Commons, choose "Upload file" from the menu on the left, and follow the steps from there – but only if the picture is your own. Once you've uploaded it, add the link that it creates for you to your user page. And don't ignore what I said about signing your posts. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi 4TheWynne, I just thought I would write you a message due to edits over the past ten days or so in relation to AFL pages. I'm starting to feel a bit bad because I don't want you to feel that I'm just reverting/changing everything you do when there are reasons behind why I'm doing them and I'm wanting to try maintain a good rapport with you. I'm all for being bold in edits, but there is a consistency within the project due to consensus which I'm not sure if you're unaware of it or ignoring it or so on. There are definitely edits I agree with you on for example with the statistics box when a player doesn't play during the year, those years are still included in the stats box. There is different consensus within different projects, and there may be a different consensus in WP:AFL compared with other projects you edit. I'm not sure how involved you've been WT:AFL, but getting involved in that may help you out a bit, editing a variety of pages will give a bit of an idea too. For example there was a discussion earlier in the year about the creation of the AFL Women's AA page, and the project decided against it, I thought about bringing this up yesterday when I noticed you created the page, but decided instead to improve it with better verifiability etc. Also having a look at WP:GA and other policies may be helpful too.

I generally try to leave editors alone in regards to editing patters, but I find that there are editors that you've dealt with recently where there's a bit of tension and opposition. I'm sure you're getting a bit frustrated too, but I would hate for an issue to arise due to edit warring as I have noticed you have been involved in edit wars recently. Perhaps WP:BRD may be a good path to go down too when someone reverts you, I just feel that things can be achieved better when there's better communication which can be done on talk pages rather than constantly through edit summaries. Consensus can always change, but there is a bit of an onus on you to enact the change in consensus with the edits you've been doing recently, as they are against consistency in the broad scheme of the project. I'll definitely try and use the talk pages more with you to keep you informed on the changes, which in hindsight I wish I did with Christian Petracca's edits last week, and that's why I'm leaving this message on your page now. This is all coming from a good place, so please don't feel like I'm being condescending. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Flickerd, I appreciate that, but I'll still get this off my chest first (I was just about to leave this on your talk page, under my earlier section). I thought I'd revisit the inquiry I made a week ago (already can't believe that it's been that long – I've made about 250 edits in that time, which is something that I never have time to do). I don't understand why there appears to be a certain standard for Melbourne player articles (that being the team that you follow), and a different standard for most of the others. I'm not insinuating that you've done this deliberately and/or for the aforementioned reason, but if your argument is that my changes aren't consistent – well, my take on it is that nobody's are. There is no set standard, there is no consistency – otherwise I would not have had to make the edits that I have. I know that there are particular pages (project pages/talk pages, etc.) that I haven't visited (which I should), but it's not as though the pages that I now edit are the only ones that I've viewed. There are inconsistencies all over the place, whereas I've tried to edit the 25 player articles that I now focus on in the same way, so that they all look the same and are set out the same way. I've made mass expansions of sections everywhere, I've added Statistics sections to several of these articles, and Honours and Achievements sections to over half of them – but I don't think that concerns you nearly as much.
Now, with what I was saying before, the Christian Petracca situation baffles me. Like TripleRoryFan, you reverted the whole thing instead of just the individual aspects that you didn't agree with, or at least didn't explain them (I know that you've addressed that now, but at least you know that I know). As I mentioned in my first edit summary, in most of the games where Petracca hasn't been named in the midfield or on the bench, he has been named on a half-forward flank. That's just an example – I'm sure you can tell what other things I disagree with, but if you're going to revert everything, you might as well revert all of the AFL-related edits that I've made in the last week. I refrain from getting in edit wars myself, and I wouldn't say that I've been in any as of yet – disagreements, certainly, but they happen.
With the newly-created pages, however, I'm not as worried – I'm basically just trying to mirror the AFL-equivalent pages in a lot of aspects, that way it's a lot more broadly covered. For example – and I'm sure you can relate to this – I'm sick of every single award, accolade, etc., not having an article and/or being redirected to the 2017 AFL Women's season page. Besides, these are all pages that would have needed to be created soon enough anyway – you even said so yourself, not that long ago, that you haven't been able/have chosen not to cover everything. I'm confident that I would have been able to put a case forward even if you or someone else had challenged these creations or mass changes. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
In regards to all the AFL edits you've been doing, I just plainly haven't seen them and the Melbourne pages are on my watchlist so it's not that they're on a different standard, I just haven't seen all the changes. I've purposely not gone through your edits outside of my watchlist because I don't want you to think that I'm WP:wikihounding you. I have over 1000 pages on my watchlist, so like I said I often don't see things, it's not that I have different standards. If anything I try to have them all the same standard but because I do so many different personal projects at the one time, sometimes it takes a bit of time to fix up. But any that I've picked up so far I've fixed (i.e. [1]), which I've just noticed you've since changed back. What I'm finding is that the consistency you're trying to strive for is the select few pages you are wanting to edit, which on the whole aren't consistent across the whole project. There are definitely inconsistencies in pages across the project, but that's because there are approximately 12,000 pages in the project and it takes time to fix everything. Like I said, consensus can always change, but the changes should be across the whole project, so if you're willing to edit 12,000 pages, that's fine but that onus is on you to make the consensus change. When people are reverting you, there is generally a reason behind it and then that onus is on you (who has made the change) to preferably go through the WP:BRD process to reach a solution.
A lot of the changes that I've seen that have been inconsistent have been to do with the infobox (here's the source so you can see what it should look like Template:Infobox AFL biography) where there is more of a set way to how things should be per consensus. The whole point I'm making really is that if you are wanting to make these changes you are best discussing it either on talk pages or at WT:AFL as the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to edit based on consensus (Wikipedia:Consensus). I'm unfortunately going to be a bit blunt, even though you see them as disagreements, doing revert-revert-revert and so on is a classic case of edit warring and I've seen editors be blocked for edit warring for a lot less than the way you've been recently. Like I said last week, I've had situations in the past where I don't like certain styling patterns but adapted my editing style in the past to meet project consensus.
Answering the Christian Petracca stuff, I'm pretty sure I answered all the changes in the edit summary a week ago and then you changed them again today, but to reiterate I've listed the infobox changes reasons below. In terms of prose, the opening paragraph I tend to edit all in the same way, which I first took from Joel Selwood as his page is a featured article. Jack Watts' article recently was promoted to Good Article status, so I restored Christian Petracca's position and height/weight sentence due to that reason as that to me reflects good article status (remember there is only a finite amount of space in edit summaries so I can't always explain everything, so that's when good faith should be assumed). Apart from that I don't think I changed the prose you edited in the lead, if I did, then it was by mistake. Prose can always be improved, so if you think there should be an improvement that's you're right. In saying that though, it is also an editors right to revert if they don't think the change has improved the quality of the prose, that's when discussing on the talkpage is a good path.
Explaining infobox changes from what I've noticed so far...
  • Draft - the AFL draft is the whole process of the draft including national draft, rookie draft, pre-season draft, free agent and so on. Therefore, the pick should be listed with the specific type of draft, national, rookie and so on.
  • Debut stadium - There has been a long term consensus to list stadium names as their current name (i.e. Etihad not Docklands), this has been done across a lot of AFL pages such as season pages, player pages and so on.
  • Player positions - This is more for modern players, there is no such thing as a specialised position anymore, for example, full forwards and centre half forwards don't exist in the same way they did in the 70s, 80s, 90s and so on, therefore it is incorrect to be that specific nowadays. Where a player is named in the starting team doesn't mean they will spend the whole match there, for example, I don't know the exact figure but about 10-15 different players during a match would start in the centre circle after a goal, yet they've been initially listed in a different position. In addition, a forward may spend times in the backline as the spare man, so basically the starting team lineup shouldn't be used as the players concrete position.
  • Career highlights - This doesn't refer to just AFL, AFLW careers and so on but their whole career including junior careers. Pages should be broad in their coverage (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria point 3), and removing junior career highlights goes against this. Yes, career highlights should be notable and not just any small achievement.
I'm not sure if I'm missing anything else to explain, but I'm happy to (and will) go through the pages you've edited recently to restore them to the consensus. That may give you a clearer guideline on what the consensus is? Like you said, I'm not concerned about the honours and achievements section, it's just the nitpicky changes in the infobox that are against consensus which I'm happy to go through now and fix up (just letting you know I'm going to edit summary them with "consistency among project").
I try not to be too overbearing to editors and leave too many messages on user talkpages because then I feel like I'm being a bit of a tyrant. But with me, if you're unsure about something try to assume good faith as there is generally a completely different reason for why I'm doing something, so in this case you were wondering why I potentially had a different standard for Melbourne pages, where it was just that I have them on my watchlist and noticed those edits and didn't want to wikihound you. If you do ever have any questions though, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I should be able to help you out. Hopefully I've answered everything (sorry it's a bit long). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I just remembered another thing, in terms of prose, I am more likely to be stricter with pages that have a lot of prose on them with a degree of structure, because to me they are more likely to reflect good article status, so I edit prose on those pages with a bit of a different standard (such as Dustin Martin's, Christian Petracca's and so on). But I will always edit infoboxes by the same standard. Flickerd (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Flickerd, OK, OK, I see your point. You don't have to do it yourself – I am more than capable of making the appropriate changes myself. But it would be very easy for me to think that you're now wikihounding, so with all due respect, please let me handle it in the morning. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 14:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry that wasn't my intention at all, I misunderstood your sentence "but if you're going to revert everything, you might as well revert all of the AFL-related edits that I've made in the last week". I've already begun fixing them up which I am perfectly entitled to fix as anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia and there is no ownership of articles, I have made you aware of what I am doing. Remember I am just doing it to try and give you a bit of a guideline out of good faith, I'm not wikihounding you. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Flickerd, indeed you misunderstood that sentence – that was sarcasm. I wasn't trying to claim ownership over any of the articles, and all I said was that you didn't have to fix them (in a "you don't have to go out of your way just to prove a point"-kind of way), not that you weren't entitled to, because of course everyone is. I do really appreciate that you allowed me to amend them myself, whatever the reason. I will admit, "overbearing", "tyrant" and "wikihound" – your own words – come to mind a little bit in terms of the way that you went about it and what I got out of some of your messages, good faith/intentions or not, but I think that we can both take something out of what's gone down and learn from this. Anyway, thanks for helping out and proving that there's someone else out there as devoted to trying to improve the whole thing – even if we don't always agree on everything, at least you were willing to show me the right thing to do. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)