User talk:Israeldmo
January 2015
[edit]
Hello, I'm NicatronTg. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to American Horror Story: Freak Show— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
American Horror Story: Freak Show
[edit]Please STOP adding actress Jamie Brewer to the Recurring and Special guest category without proper sourcing provided. If you do not cease this disruptive behaviour, you may be banned or blocked from ever editing Wikipedia again. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Firstly, I was not being rude, simply direct and to the point. However I was getting quite frustrated with your multiple additions of this inaccurate information. Please be aware of the edit summary box, and it's contents. Be prepared to deal with a barge of incredibly rude people on this site. I linked to an article that will help you understand what sort of sources are acceptable. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
--
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
American Horror Story: Freakshow
[edit]I have asked you multiple times with reason to stop changing the spelling of 'miniseries' in the Awards and Nominations section of this page. It is important to keep things that do not need changing the same as well as keep it consistent with other articles related. Please stop changing this for your personal preference. If it is a massive issue for you I encourage you to open a consensus on the page's talk page for further discussion. Until then please leave well enough alone. Thanks. Brocicle (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
You're Invited!
[edit]
|
Hi Israeldmo!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)(UTC) (UTC) |
January 2015
[edit]
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 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Spoilertv
[edit]Do not add unreliable sources like Spoilertv to add content in any article, least American Horror Story: Hotel like you just did. Please abide by reliable source policy of Wikipedia. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
July 2015
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at American Horror Story: Hotel, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. There is consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Usage_of_.26_versus_a_break and if you remove it another time, I will make sure your disruptive edits are reported to WP:ANI. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 05:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
August 2015
[edit]Your recent editing history at American Horror Story: Hotel 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.
Both of you take it to the talk page —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 03:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]- Hi Israeldmo! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 04:05, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Can you give me a reason why I should not block you for edit warring? --NeilN talk to me 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't want to start an edit war. I warned him multiple times and he kept reverting my edits. Look at the AHS: Asylum talk page. I justified all my edits. I'm sorry for this, NeilN, it wasn't my intention to cause any trouble. --Israeldmo (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of American Horror Story: Freak Show
[edit]Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article American Horror Story: Freak Show you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of American Horror Story: Freak Show
[edit]The article American Horror Story: Freak Show you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:American Horror Story: Freak Show for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Israeldmo, ping me if you need help with some of the concerns for the GA review. It was a tad bit premature but I guess since this is your first nomination mistakes can happen like this. I think target the plot summary reduction first :) —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 06:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok Israel, will start with the plot reduction. :) —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 02:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of American Horror Story: Freak Show
[edit]The article American Horror Story: Freak Show you nominated as a good article has failed 
; see Talk:American Horror Story: Freak Show for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Azealia911 -- Azealia911 (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hotel
[edit]Israelmdo, are you interested to contribute on the individual episode articles and take them to GA? Eventually the whole season can be a Good topic. Please find details in the talk page of the season 5 article. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 21:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm totally in! I was already interested in doing this before, as I am to do for each season articles, but I've been very busy these months. I even have a couple of ideas in mind. Thank you, IndianBio! Israeldmo (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 14 July
[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the 68th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 18
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 68th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Walking Dead. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Israeldmo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Israeldmo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Next time read first before you undo reverts that removed your inaccurate information added
[edit]Kindly remember to PROPERLY check your sources before making edits, or undoing ones that have undone the incorrect additions you make to articles. That forbes article that you're so in love with was reporting based off of a SOOMPI article (equally as unreliable as the kworb source that you added before which I had removed) which does not contain any official, confirmed, verified info from Billboard or Youtube, so please if you're gonna insist on acting like this do some basic reading and comprehension first. It's not that difficult. The amount of times ppl like you have incorrectly updated or attempted to update the List of most viewed online videos in the first 24 hours is getting tiring and exhausting simply because y'all refuse to read properly. Let me spell it out for you: THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO RELIABLE SOURCES STATING WHAT THE FILTERED, FINAL VIEW COUNT IS FOR DUDUDUDU SO THE MV CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE LIST BECAUSE ANY EXISTING NUMBERS ARE ONLY UNFILTERED, SUPPOSEDLY REALTIME ONES. - Carlobunnie (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Carlobunnie: Your tone seems very pointed right now. Seriously though, did I hurt you or your family? Because you're being rude to me for no reason whatsoever. I did revert your edit because I thought the Forbes article was realiable enough. Regardless of which source they're basing off, I don't think they would put a fake information into their articles. But okay, I understand now. You could've politely explained this to me, instead of acting like a douchebag. Anyway, have a nice weekend! Israeldmo (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Israeldmo: Multiple editors including myself explained more than once on the talk page of the article/the page's edit history. If you had bothered to check that, to see why all the previous reqs for DDD to be added to the list were rejected, you would have understood and I wouldn't have had to come tell you here. I am usually extremely polite and avoid saying anything to anyone but after seeing tons of the same edit being made, using the same unreliable sources that were pointed out as unreliable multiple times I snapped because it's really tiring monitoring that page and watching all the other editors have to undo update after update. So yeah I said it how I said it because apparently y'all needed it to be spelt out in all caps in a way that would get your attention since none of you seemed to be reading anything the lot of us explained over the past week (quite politely too I might add). I would apologize for snapping but there was literally no other way to get through to any of you, and you also called me a douchebag (very mature btw) when I had not resorted to something as childish as namecalling but go off I guess :) - Carlobunnie (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Carlobunnie: I didn't call you a douchebag, I said you acted like one. And you did. Also, I find it incredible that you were extremely rude to me for no damn reason (I don't care how many times you've had to explain this before, it still doesn't justify you coming to my talk page and treating me that way. I simply undid ONCE your revert because I thought Forbes was a reliable source) but "namecalling" is off-limits. I'm done wasting my time with you. Israeldmo (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Israeldmo: Multiple editors including myself explained more than once on the talk page of the article/the page's edit history. If you had bothered to check that, to see why all the previous reqs for DDD to be added to the list were rejected, you would have understood and I wouldn't have had to come tell you here. I am usually extremely polite and avoid saying anything to anyone but after seeing tons of the same edit being made, using the same unreliable sources that were pointed out as unreliable multiple times I snapped because it's really tiring monitoring that page and watching all the other editors have to undo update after update. So yeah I said it how I said it because apparently y'all needed it to be spelt out in all caps in a way that would get your attention since none of you seemed to be reading anything the lot of us explained over the past week (quite politely too I might add). I would apologize for snapping but there was literally no other way to get through to any of you, and you also called me a douchebag (very mature btw) when I had not resorted to something as childish as namecalling but go off I guess :) - Carlobunnie (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
But i don't think forbes would write something based on unreliable sources too. And i'm pretty sure a lot of blinks saw that it certainly hit more than 20 million in 24 hours but unfortunately, not a lot of news wrote it. CVILIANS (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)]
- @CVILIANS: I honestly think we should include the Forbes article because it is a reliable source. They're basically just corroborating what the SOOMPI article said. It's not up to me though, so I guess it's better wait for a more reliable article. Israeldmo (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Israeldmo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)