User talk:Njorent

December 2011

Your addition to Once Upon a Time (TV series) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a mistake, I apologize. I'm having trouble distinguishing what was copied to Wikipedia, and what was copied from Wikipedia onto other sites. I just now discovered this error, and am trying to determine exactly what went on. Kevinbrogers (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Once Upon a Time episodes, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: List of Once Upon a Time episodes was changed by Njorent (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.888031 on 2011-12-31T15:35:16+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maleficent

I know you haven't made many edits and may not understand all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In as friendly and constructive a way as possible, I need to explain that your edits just now represented serious violations of both. You cannot simply remove another editor's properly cited sources, and each Wikipedia editor is responsible for verifying his or her own edits with reliable-source citations. You cannot demand that another editor do that work for you. Now, I invite you to discuss any issues with this on the article's talk page, and while I know you mean well, I do need to explain that edit-warring will necessitate admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright. You're being very kind. Is there anything I can do to help, or is there any advice or mentoring I can give? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stitch Kingdom appears to be an anonymous fan site. Most self-published sites are disallowed as reference sources since there's no way of knowing the expertise of who is contributing and because they are not professional journalistic or academic sites, which have to maintain standards of reporting, editing, attribution, responsibility and ethics (to boil it all down to a few words). That said, the site claims it received the information from Disney. If some anonymous fan site received this information, surely Disney would have given it to the press as well. If Disney hasn't ... well, that's a red flag. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything on the movie's official site is absolutely, eminently usable if paraphrased and cited. In fact, we're not supposed to be even quote the plot synopsis directly for copyright reasons, but I've been so busy trying to bring the rest of the article to policy/guideline standards that I haven't been able to address that yet.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the anonymous fan site is using copyrighted material with no indication it has permission to do so. Without knowing more I can't tell, but at first glance it looks like Stitch Kingdom may be violating copyright law. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Selma (film)

I noticed your recent edit to Selma (film). You removed the parenthetical 'SCLC' and 'SNCC'; these are well-known acronyms, and at necessary because the acronyms alone are used further along in the text. When you consider deleting parts of an article, read carefully to determine if those parts are correct and necessary. I have reverted the edit, and no harm has been done. — Neonorange (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Designated Survivor (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secret Service. 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) 10:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi! I've noticed you make a lot of edits to the Designated Survivor (TV series) page, and that's great! But please try to write edit summaries explaining your reasoning when you revert specific changes others have made, such as the placement of the Plot section. The lead is supposed to contain a summary of the most important parts of an article, and the plot of a television series is arguably the most important part. I have not reverted your edit for the time being, as I would prefer a response from you here with an explanation before I do so we don't edit war. If your reasoning for moving it out of the lead into its own section in the table of contents was based on your subjective opinion about where it would be best, please note that that may violate Wikipedia's Manual of Style for television and general lead style, which are established consensus-driven formatting guides. If you had a good reason, then by all means, move it, but please explain so in the edit summary. It's there for a reason ;) Thank you! LocalNet (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of the United States

In the article First Lady of the United States has been written:

The First Lady of the United States is an unofficial title and position traditionally held by the wife of the President of the United States, concurrent with the president's term of office.

However, in the article List of First Ladies of the United States says:

This list included all persons who served as First Ladies, regardless of whether they were married to the incumbent President or not...

Well, how it is really with:

3: Martha Wayles Skelton (or should be as Martha Jefferson?) Died nearly nineteen years prior to his presidency → Thomas Jefferson

7: Rachel Donelson (or should be as Rachel Jackson?) Died after election, prior to husband's inauguration → Andrew Jackson

8: Hannah Hoes (or should be as Hannah van Buren?) Died eighteen years prior to his presidency → Martin Van Buren

21: Ellen Lewis Herndon (or should be as Ellen Arthur?) Died nineteen months prior to his presidency → Chester A. Arthur

Finally, how about Jane Wyman, if "regardless of whether they were married to the incumbent President or not"? She was the first wife of Ronald Reagan 1940-1949.

--85.76.78.121 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Njorent. 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)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Emerald City (TV series) does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries and/or preview your edits

Hi, this seems to be an ongoing problem given the messages on your talk page. This is regarding American Crime (TV series), in the past 3 days you've made over 30 edits (mainly to the same section) and none of your edits have an edit summary. I highly suggest using the edit preview and not making dozens and dozens of minor edits and instead make one or two major edits. This makes it more helpful for other users who wish to review the changes. It's almost impossible to decipher what's been changed when you make 15 edits in the span of 3 minutes. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with your last revert on List of Timeless characters. - Areaseven (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight (2016 film)

Can you explain why you undid my edit. You gave no edit summary explaination.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE PLEASE use edit summaries more often. It is hard to understand what you are doing. Compare these two edits [1] and [2]. Why add "shy" and then remove it again. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Njorent. I noticed recently you made an edit to moonlight that covers a topic that's some pretty decayed WP:HORSEMEAT, specifically the one on the talk page about the correct use of the verb "masturbates" and if any replacement is required. I understand that you may believe the word is incorrectly used or is too informal (I myself share these views to some degree) but it would be in everyone's best interests to simply leave this particular horse carcass where it lies. --- User:MuganiHakHakHak —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article Criminal Minds (season 12). It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this you editing logged out? El_C 03:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No.--Njorent (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that accusation. The timing was uncanny and it seemed like you. If it wasn't you, I apologize. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. I'm sorry too. I get what you're saying. I'm a critic – movie critic – and I tend to go slightly overboard when it comes to editing and all that.--Njorent (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal

I am sorry for the rudeness. Please accept my sincere apologies. Abbasjnr (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation please

Would you please you care to explain this edit instead of just reverting without any comment? Thank you. Regards --Rosenzweig (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spider-Man: Homecoming. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Regarding the plot, please see WP:PLOTBLOAT and also know you are restoring non copy-edited material (particularly on names and layout). Additionally, there is talk page consensus to not include the non-plot related post-credits scene. Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endless edits

Njorent, I really appreciate your hard work and eagerness to refine what you edit, but your constant rapid-fire repetitive edits with no edit summaries have to change. Moreover, you've got to respect that others will edit your work, and not find it necessary to go back, re-edit and nit-pick what they've changed. The collaboration matters, too. It's insulting to others when you immediately go back and re-edit what they've done. I think you got a taste of how it feels recently when I did it to you. Be flexible.

If you need to fiddle with edits, and clearly you do, please use your sandbox. You can cut-and-paste your finished edit over, with an edit summary once you have it where you want it. This is much easier on other editors, and what the community expects. The other expectation, of course, is that you will respond to the posts on your talk page, something it appears you rarely if ever do.

Speaking of edit summaries, you've been asked repeatedly to use edit summaries when you post. You've got to start doing that, or the issue will have to be raised at WP:ANI, and no one wants that. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Crime Story

Dumb question: where is your reliable source that Max Greenfield is Santo Versace?? Tabercil (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.eonline.com/photos/21267/american-crime-story-the-assassination-of-gianni-versace-how-the-cast-compares-to-their-real-life-counterparts/769700--Njorent (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's about the only source that gives that link. Most of the other sources simply say Max is playing an unidentified character. E.g., this which came out after the eonline story. Tabercil (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Your recent editing history at American Crime Story 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 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.
:Take the dispute to the article's Talk page please. Tabercil (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Minds characters

Hi! What about the Criminal Minds edit? Main characters / Former main characters? Kuriosatempel (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2017 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Njorent reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: ). Thank you. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cast order

Hi there, re: this edit, where you rearrange cast with the justification "Because it's not how he is credited on IMDB", we typically organize cast in TV articles per onscreen credits. I don't happen to know what the proper order is in the onscreen credits, but we shouldn't be using IMDb for this info, (IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source across the encyclopedia per WP:RS, WP:RS/IMDB, WP:TVFAQ) unless, IMDb has verified the credit order, which they typically indicate at the top of the cast section. Note the verification here, "Cast (in credits order) verified as complete". That is not the case with the IMDb list for The People v. O.J. Simpson. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Njorent. 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)[reply]

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Designated Survivor (season 2) 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 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. — Wylie pedia 14:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to The Phantom of the Opera (2004 film).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.[reply]

Your apology

I understand and I accept your apology, but please, tell him to stop undoing the changes on the Criminal Minds (season 13) page. He did it again after your message. Flordeneu (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Njorent, you need to change your password right now and take steps to ensure your brother doesn't use your account. We don't allow shared accounts and if this happens again then I will have to block this account indefinitely as compromised. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:53, 19 April 2018 (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. Galatz ^Talk 13:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for operating a compromised account.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Njorent". The reason given for Njorent's block is: "operating a compromised account".

Blocking administrator: NeilN (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: It's not an autoblock, this account is directly blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would like to ask that you unblock Bicam3ralMind as I made that to be a new account that will only be used by me. And I also ask that user 84.13.24.209 apologize to me for bragging about my being blocked.

If you want a different account unblocked, you will need to log in to that account and make the request there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Will you still have 84.13.24.209 apologize? It's like he was rubbing my being blocked in my face.

I can't make anybody apologize for anything. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]