User talk:MagicatthemovieS

Hi - I figured out how to enter this request directly. Can you please remove this from your talk page entirely? Very sorry - newbie here!

I've never reached out before, but I am hoping you can help with an edit to this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_removed_during_the_George_Floyd_protests

Under the section, 1.5 - Removals under consideration.

• Michigan - The Allendale Township board will vote on June 30, 2020, on whether to keep a statue depicting a Confederate and Union soldier standing back to back with a young slave crouched down between them.

Here is an article:
https://www.woodtv.com/news/ottawa-county/protesters-demand-confederate-statue-to-be-removed/

And another article:
https://www.woodtv.com/news/ottawa-county/twp-sup-board-plans-to-keep-confederate-soldier-statue/

Thank you for your efforts to help keep people well informed!

@Concerned BLM: If the statue will remain, it probably shouldn't be mentioned in an article about statue removal. Thanks so much for reaching put to me!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi - Understood, but I only put it in the reference in the section "1.5 Removals under consideration" which has similar listings of things that are up for votes. FYI - I don't know how to ping or delete this exchange on your talk page, but I'd like to delete, if possible?

Hi there, MagicatthemoviesS! (I like your username by the way :) My username is Littlecucumber! I just wanted to say hello. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlecucumber (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that by strong convention, "art" and "artist" are restricted in WP categories to visual art. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello MagicatthemovieS, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. I didn't see any information in the article listing this as a "natural horror" film, nor did Allmovie list it as such, nor did List of natural horror films list this film. DonIago (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Yeti: Curse of the Snow Demon, you may be blocked from editing. Given that I notified you about this previously and you proceeded to make essentially the same edits, I'm forced to assume you're now intentionally inserting this erroneously. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: This was legit an accident on my part. I forgot about our conversation.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi. Star Tribune review says "Mraz, well, he would never hurt you. That's been clear for years, but never more so than on his 2008 hit "I'm Yours," one of the most indelible pop songs of the last decade. "I'm Yours" found an unlikely counterpart in "Hey, Soul Sister," released the following year by the band Train. Both were expressions of fealty, and both indicated the continuing vitality of maligned soft rock."

New York Times review also the same description "“I’m Yours” found an unlikely counterpart in “Hey, Soul Sister,” released the following year by the adult-contemporary rock band Train. Both were expressions of fealty, both used ukulele (or, at least, very tightly strung guitar), and both indicated the continuing vitality — if not originality — of soft rock, a genre maligned to the bones but stubborn."

The same staff writer recalls "both artists" and it's about Jason's and Train's artistry in music, not about both single songs (I guess). 2402:1980:24E:2ED8:8E10:743F:4722:2B9A (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a ref which is New York Times rather than Star Tribune in Jason Mraz page infobox. What do you think? 2402:1980:824D:35C4:BAD:F9FC:4A88:8C5C (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I misread. The staff writer says "both used ukulele" and "both indicated the continuing vitality of maligned soft rock" refers to both songs. My apologies. 2402:1980:251:EF45:95D7:ACFC:195D:6725 (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Shout at the Devil, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. SolarFlash^Discussion 20:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit [1], Satanism and obscenity are two very different things. Satanisn deals with idealogical and philosophical beliefs, while obscentiy deals with acts deemed offensive, typically of a sexual nature. Not the same things at all. If you insist on edit warring over this, please provide reliable sources that will confirm your point of view. Otherwise, dispute resolution will be sought. Continued edit warring on your part will result in a loss of your editing privileges. Enjoy your day. SolarFlash^Discussion 15:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Can't Get You Out of My Head, I added ref says dance-pop which is more accurate than dance music which is an umbrella term. However that user added again a sourced genre and says "Added again a sourced genre, previously removed without reason". I don't really know what to say with edit summary. 2402:1980:8284:3263:DA2A:8282:C9D6:FD25 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone designs "a" logo, doesn't make them a "logo designer". If you insist, take it the talk pages. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rock Is Dead (Marilyn Manson song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited My Kind of Christmas (Reba McEntire album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Christmas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

women in fiction and reality
... you were recipient no. 2172 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- MrX 🖋 14:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to let you know that "Rider Haggard" is what Brits call that British author in an article marked as British English about a character devised by another British author. Hope this is clear now. Many thanks Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Statue of Frederick Douglass (Rochester, New York) 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 Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Statue of Frederick Douglass (Rochester, New York) 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:Statue of Frederick Douglass (Rochester, New York) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your undiscussed move of this article to Joseph Stalin's cult of personality, as "Joseph" is entirely extraneous. No one else is being referred to by "Stalin". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Klement Gottwald Antonín Zápotocký President of Czech who died office.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk President of Turkey who died office.

Prime Minister of India who died in office. Missing Jawaharlal Nehru Lal Bahadur Shastri

Francisco Solano López Luis María Argaña President of Paraguay who died in office.

President of Liberia who died of office William Tubman William Tolbert

President of Guinea who died in office. Ahmed Sékou Touré Lansana Conté

President of Algeria who died in office. Houari Boumédiène Mohamed Boudiaf Ryan Pikachu (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President of Uruguay who died in office. Tomás Berreta Óscar Diego Gestido Juan Idiarte Borda

Prime Minister of Romania who died in office. Patriarch Miron of Romania Armand Călinescu

Prime Minister of Poland who died in office. Władysław Sikorski

Prime Minister of Nepal who died while in office. Bir Shumsher Jang Bahadur Rana Chandra Shumsher Jang Bahadur Rana Bhim Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana

President of Philippines who died in office. Manuel Roxas

President of Peru who died in office. Miguel de San Román Remigio Morales Bermúdez Manuel Candamo Luis Miguel Sánchez Cerro

President of Angola who died in office. Agostinho Neto

President of Niger who died in office. Seyni Kountché Ibrahim Baré Maïnassara Ryan Pikachu (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Statue of Frederick Douglass (Rochester, New York) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Statue of Frederick Douglass (Rochester, New York) 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 Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I thought I would let you know that your message about "Closed on Sunday" being a ballad was accidentally posted on the GA review page instead of the article's talk page, though I moved it for you; in the future, remember not to click the edit link on the GA review section of the talk page because that leads to editing the review. --K. Peake 10:44, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Nathanael (disciple of Jesus) was moved to Nathanael (follower of Jesus). John 21:2 says "Together were Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, Zebedee’s sons,* and two others of his disciples." This would seem to suggest that Nathanael was also a "disciple", if not necessarily an apostle. Manannan67 (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MagicatthemovieS, I'm writing you this message to inform you that Blue Oyster Cult's "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" was recorded in 1975. Produced by M. Krugman, S. Pearlman, and D. Lucas. I have the essential Blue Oyster Cult CD compilation produced by Bruce Dickinson. Authored by Tom Terrell. Released in 2003. It has liner notes with a list of songs showing release dates and also showing recording dates. I viewed "(Don't Fear) The Reaper, and I looked at the recording date, it said 1975. And I also watched Blue Oyster Cult being interviewed on the subject of "(Don't Fear) The Reaper," on you tube, they said it was recorded in 1975. So on Wikipedia, the single, "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" shows 1976 on the recording date. So on the Wikipedia recording date, it needs to show 1975 instead of 1976. I'm just bringing that to your attention. Sincerely, Hinkgoyd. September 7, 2020. 11:47 PM. Eastern Time. Hinkgoyd (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful edit to the new article Bloodlust Zombies! What do you think of the article so far? Right cite (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC) @Right cite: it looks great![reply]

can update wiki burial for Henryk Floyar-Rajchman and Ignacy Matuszewski November 18, 2016 both are travel to poland and December 10, 2016, they are buried at Powązki Military Cemetery archiwum.thenews.pl/1/9/Artykul/283949,Officers-who-saved-Polish-gold-in-WWII-buried-in-Warsaw https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignacy_Matuszewski#/media/Plik:Ignacy_Matuszewski,_Henryk_Floyar-Rajchman_(gr%C3%B3b)_01.jpg Ryan Pikachu (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jack Frost (1998 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chucky.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed twice that you tried to add the conspiracy theorist category to the Charlie Kirk page: [2], [3]. Please refrain from adding this category, since there is an active RfC on this very subject. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure to find a source that specifically supports the addition of a category before you add one to this article. Thanks. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!)

Hello, I'm Bettydaisies. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Lana Del Rey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please see here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MagicatthemovieS, I have seen that you've changed the spelling of Vergil to Virgil on two occasions in the Thebaid (Latin poem). As you may know, scholars refer to the poet as both Vergil and Virgil, so it's up to us which variant we choose. The important thing is consistency within an article, which is why I changed your edits back to Vergil. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your "home studio" category additions to Radiohead articles.

These albums weren't recorded in home studios. They were recorded with recorded equipment set up temporarily in unoccupied houses. That's not the commonly understood definition of a "home studio".

Additionally, it's misleading to categorise OK Computer as a concept album when the album itself discusses how this label is disputed. Popcornfud (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our verifiability policy applies to categories as well. I've reverted your two recent additions to Thrift Shop and Robert W. Lee IV as unsourced. Nothing is mentioned in the Thrift Shop article about plagiarism; any category added to an article should be backed by a reliable source. The addition of an "imposter" category violates WP:NPOV/WP:SYNTH; while there are sources that cast doubts on Lee's ancestry claims, those sources don't use the word "imposter," but rather suggest that he and his family members are confusing two different Robert Lees. The word "imposter" implies that he knowingly asserted the relationship under false pretenses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the above that I'm not the only one who's confused by your additions of categories on Wikipedia. Can I suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:DEFINING before continuing to add categories to articles. In particular, the statement there that "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having ..." In other words, it's not enough to add a category just because one or two sources support it. JG66 (talk) 17:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Conservative Political Action Conference, you may be blocked from editing. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this category redundant that you're removing it from articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: It's not redundant in and of itself. Sometimes, however, an article belongs to a subcategory of "Conservatism in the United States" so there's no need to use that more general category.

On the basis of what sub-cat are you making these removals? Please stop your edits until this is cleared up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category if one of the many subcats of "Conservatism in the United States" is there. There are quite a few.

@Beyond My Ken: Are we on the same page here?

Yeah, I guess. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I notice you've been active in adding (or removing) categories, and that many recent edits lacked edit summaries. You might consider using HotCat, if you're not already, which automatically adds an appropriate edit notice. Edit summaries, even brief ones, are strongly encouraged in articles, as they help editors keep better track of changes. The more substantive the change, the more likely an edit summary is needed (and larger edits warrant more detailed summaries than simple or minor ones). Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Animalparty! (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to remember to do this always!MagicatthemovieS (talk)MAgicatthemovieS

Just a quick heads up I rolled back your section header change about the Flag of Florida. I spent some time carving through newspaper archives last year trying to find information about the history of the flag. I don't think there's been much debate about the topic. Not enough to justify calling it "confederate debate." Thanks! Happy editing. - Nemov (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov:Is there a heading that's more descriptive than "Additional perspectives?" That phrase is very vague.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Good question. A broader question could be asked is the section even necessary? The entire idea that the flag is based off the confederate flag comes from one source, a book that appears to lump Florida in with other Southern states who were most definitely using the confederate flag as inspiration. No historian in Florida has been able to make the connection and there's nothing in the written record to support it either. That's why I'm at the very least hesitant to call it a debate. It really is a perspective. - Nemov (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. "Melted Stone" is a copyright holder, also #Release_and_promotion, on second paragraph. And I don't think it's a label but hoping you could help. 183.171.115.201 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Black-and-white music videos has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An artist self-describing their own work is not a reliable source for genres. Also the album is not out yet so it is too early to say for sire >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 14:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— TheresNoTime (talk • she/her) 18:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing that category from many pages where it is clearly relevant? When I reverted the removal from White privilege you reverted back rather than taking it to the talk page per WP:BRD. Among the other pages where you removed that category: Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States, Anti-Chinese sentiment in the United States, Racial bias in criminal news in the United States, Angry white man, Blackface in contemporary art, Blackface, Rugby union and apartheid, Eurocentrism, White supremacy, Racial antisemitism. NightHeron (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's redundant in a lot of places because they include more specific categories that fall under the racism category MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking specifically at White privilege, there are now 7 categories listed. The category "White privilege" (which coincides with the title of the article) is a subcategory of all of the other 6 categories and falls under each of them. So by the same logic we could remove everything but the "White privilege" category, which is the most specific one.

The Wikipedia policy on this allows for exceptions (see WP:ALLINCLUDED). Frankly, I don't completely understand what the term "non-diffusing" is supposed to mean. Hopefully it means that if the larger category is not really redundant but conveys relevant information about the topic, then it can stay. In any case, maybe this should be discussed at an appropriate venue and a consensus reached before you make wholesale removals of the "Racism" category from many pages. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the Racism in the United States category from Eugenics in the United States, and mark it as a "redundant category" in the edit summary? Netherzone (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone:The article is already under the category "Eugenics in the United States" which is a subcategory of "Racism in the United States," making the latter category redundant.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi there, wanted to avoid an edit war. Thank you for sourcing your edit on Ezra Miller’s page. I wanted to clean up the sentence structure a bit and make sure the arrests weren’t mixed up with allegations etc. This included removal of the identifying as Devil, Jesus, Messiah as this is something only currently sourced in one article and will be better at home in the controversy section. I also kept it just as arrests for now as the structure of the sentence on to the child grooming didn’t flow well (accused used twice in the sentence) and I was also unsure why that one was specified over the other allegations as well (kidnapping, housing weapons, inappropriate relationships with various women and cult-like behaviour). Allegations I think will be better at home for now in the controversy section for now until we get a clearer idea on this whole thing. I hope that makes sense and as always I am happy to discuss further! I have also opened this up to discussion on the articles ‘talk’ page. Thank you for your edits and thanks again for sourcing! Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tokata Iron Eyes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Sacheen Littlefeather. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This regards the two categories you added. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you've been warned about this before, but I'll take my time and spell it out for you again. Just because something is the case in other articles, does not necessarily make it right; we have to adhere to our policies and guidelines regardless. "YouTube controversies" is neither verified in the article body nor is it a defining characteristic outlined at our guideline for categorization of people. Since this concerns unverified information about a living person, I will revert again and ask you to refrain from edit warring. Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've already been alerted by User:TheresNoTime about gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions. You readded the category "Hate speech" to When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment in violation of WP:POVCAT. I see that others have recently cautioned you about improper categorization. I would welcome a dialogue on the talk page, and trust that such may yield insight into other categorization difficulties you may be encountering. You are strongly encouraged to engage and discuss your viewpoints on the talk page rather than simply reverting the removal. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i've reverted your edit to mother teresa – I originally came to your article to ask you why this category was added, but I've just found the article used to support this category.

Having read the WSJ article on her worship by some residents of Calcutta despite their being Hindu or Sikh, but also having had a look over Wikipedia's policies on categorisation, I don't think it's a defining characteristic of hers, and I don't think the category should be added to the article because of one reference with anecdotal testimonies.

I apologise that I didn't take the time to find the reference within the article before reverting, and I'd say your edit is in good faith; but I just don't think her veneration in Hinduism and Sikhism is notable enough to warrant a category.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 23:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Nagol0929. I noticed that you recently removed content from Colorado Springs nightclub shooting without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nagol0929 (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MediaWiki message delivery 81.0.161.103 (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Kanye West, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please keep this in mind. I've had to revert an unsupported category yet again here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and in general, before deleting "redundant" categories, would be always good to read the article first. ;-) Ciao, Alex2006 (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you intended to nominate The Embrace for DYK, but to do so, you must create a nomination template. The process is all automated, so just use the form at WP:Did you know/Create new nomination. Good luck. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 15:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of The Embrace at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Fayenatic London 16:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's this crap with removing Far-right categories on the pages of neo-fascist organizations? What's your motivation behind this? Are you gonna tell me fascism is left-wing or something? Synotia (moan) 09:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite the opposite, it's a redundant category if they're already under neo fascist categories. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. Synotia (moan) 15:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Fascism" is a subset of far-right politics, so if you put something in the "fascist" category, calling it "far-right" is redundant.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 3 4 Your claim that the category Gun politics in the United States is "redundant" on related articles is unsupported, and could be viewed as WP:DIS. I suggest you utilize the talk pages to gain consensus for changes you want to make before making any future edits. DN (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See recent discussion...DN (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC) (edit -add better link showing and clarifying closure on this discussion regarding my concerns)DN (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Please STOP deleting category:Native American history from articles about Native American history. Yuchitown (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

You have also done this at 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott and 2023 Target Pride Month merchandise backlash. Please stop. Glman99 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Glman99 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As followup to my comment at ANI, my guess is the guidance on gender subcategories is intended to apply to fictional characters as well with the exception of cases when were have equivalent subcategory for male category. When we don't, the same concerns are likely to arise i.e. the ghettoisation issue. Since there is no equivalent category for men, only men (and those who cannot be categorised as either e.g. non-binary) will stay in the main category, but not women which creates a bit of a questionable situation. While Category:Fictional Native American women does not note it is non diffusing this could easily have been just because no one added it. Likewise while Category:Fictional Native American people notes it's intended to be a container category, there's a fair chance that's intended to apply to the further categorisation by tribe and media type. In other words, I strongly suspect in cases where this cannot happen because there is no media type subcategory and the person's tribal affiliation isn't something made clear in the portrayal, both male and female characters are intended to stay in the main category, with female characters also added to the specific female subcategory. While it may seem the ethnicity subcategory issue would apply to diffusion into tribal affiliation, my guess is it does not since it's not considered important to categorise people who's tribal affiliation is known as Native American people. I could be wrong about all this as I'm not particularly involved in categorisation and especially not Native American categorisation. But I do know removal of women from a parent category just because they are in the women subcategory has been extremely controversial both within Wikipedia and outside so you really need to tread carefully if you're going to be doing that. The existence of a women category itself is often controversial, but as long as it exists, due care needs to be taken how to handle it. And as I also mentioned at ANI, being active in discussion when your changes are disputed should significantly improve your understanding of how to handle issues like this. Nil Einne (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy Sainte Marie is not Canadian! The order of Canada is not proof non Canadians are also eligible for that award please see Eligibility | The Governor General of Canada (gg.ca) 2605:59C8:260C:9200:89F6:3D1:50AE:3DE1 (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 18 § X in fiction I on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MagicatthemovieS, I notice you removed direct quotes from Death of Nex Benedict and replaced these direct quotes with wikilinks [4] that seems to muddle one of the critical aspects of the Reactions section in this article. I think we can't presume to know what the speaker means by "radical leftists" and are not doing readers any favors by removing the direct quote and directing readers to a Wikipedia article that may or may not distort what the speaker intends. You also removed a direct quote with similar language [5]. From my view, this is a contentious label in American politics, and not appropriate to wikilink or adopt in wikivoice instead of quote in a contentious Reactions section, which is why I removed the wikilink and used direct quotes. We can discuss this further on the article talk page, but I wanted to bring this to your attention here first to check in about whether you are interested in reverting this change, or wished to further discuss it here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your help with identifying sources for this change to the lead [6], because the article does not seem to reflect this, but I would be happy to find the content and/or sources. There is a lot of content and sources to review. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I confused two different quotes from Walters for two different people. My bad. I responded to your other concern on the talk page.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Thank you - I also continued to consider the lead, and how much detail seems appropriate to include according to the article, MOS:LEAD, and WP:PROPORTION, and made an adjustment. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2024 Wakeley church stabbing, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. This is the second time you have boldly inserted religiously oriented categories and links that are not referenced in the broader article. In the future, please discuss such changes on the talk page. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you recently edited page on Theodore N Kaufman. Is there a major typo in opening paras? Wouldn't he have called for sterilisation of Germans rather than Americans, which is what I just read. Regards

Nb, i dont know who would be responsible for typo, its just that ive never edited a page and randomly chose you to help

Wow, i just read on. That Kaufman was a strange guy. So, there is no typo. Apologies, JRJazzRewind (talk) 04:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Terror Train 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of MyCatIsAChonk -- MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Terror Train you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Terror Train for comments about the article, and Talk:Terror Train/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MyCatIsAChonk -- MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work MagicatthemovieS! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ulterior Motives (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New wave.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to discuss this revision so we can both try to understand where we're coming from. I can see why some might think she would belong in the new religious movement deities, however, I havn't, to my knowledge, ever heard of a human being being considered a deity. There are saints, priestesses, gurus, etc, but if you please send me some resources for this so i can better understand why she would belong in this category, I'd appreciate it. DNocterum (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one suggestion I'd have is removing her from the mother and earth goddesses categories, but keeping her in the new religious movement deities category. DNocterum (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work on this one! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MagicatthemovieS, I'm @Spectrallights. I restored the category of 1990s female buddy films to To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar. Although the leads characters are biologically male, they spend the majority of the film in their drag personas, present as women, and refer to themselves with female pronouns. Their characters are also referred to with female pronouns in the Legacy section. If you think I made a mistake or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Spectrallights (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding Sanger to the eugenist category. That was not by far where she was know for. The Banner talk 11:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MagicatthemovieS, I added a few more sentences to the lead to make the lead a more complete summary in Jews in the Civil Rights Movement. I hope it is fine now. Thank you for your time! Homerethegreat (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough about criticismMagicatthemovieS (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Hi @MagicatthemovieS. In the recent discussion about the album release history table, Andrew318 said that those are distributors, not labels. So if you have any further comments as you wish, I will reply as soon as possible. Regards. 183.171.121.160 (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! DoctorMatt (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile, so I can't throw WikiLove here, but just imagine your favourite pastry or something. You did a good job! Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have done a re-write on the article Les Mains d'Orlac that you are one of the more active major contributors too. As it was a bold re-write, I figured I'd approach you to make sure we have not lost any key information that we could potentially recover with stronger sources. I look forward to your input if you have any. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot for Wikipedia and I admire that a lot. From what I can tell, Dracula (1931) regularly gets placed on lists of the best horror films ever but the article for the Universal Dracula series gives the impression that it's been devalued since the 1950s. I would hope that the article would discuss all the acclaim it continues to receive. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula is complicated in nature. I have been working on User:Andrzejbanas/sandbox and have taken a break from it. In Both Skal's book on the film and Rhodes, the general consensus for decades has been what they authors suggested in retrospective reviews. While it sometimes gets placed on best-ofs lists, and I've seen it a good chunk, individual reviews tend to sway towards what it states in both books. There are some defenders, but the article is about the series in question, so I tried to only include reviews where they compare the films in quality to each other. I hope that clarifies things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, ignoring all the film's retrospective acclaim strikes me as reductive. Also, a film can be acclaimed while being considered stagy talky, especially if it's an early "talkie." MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, ignoring all the film's retrospective acclaim strikes me as reductive. Also, a film can be acclaimed while being considered stagy talky, especially if it's an early "talkie." MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring it, that's what the general comments are about the film. And this is a review of the series, not individual film. I can provide more context if you like.

• "The fist time a serious critic tackled the 1931 film version seems to be have been October 1953 when George Geltzer published an article stating ""Today Dracula seems weak," "but its opening sequences of Count Dracula's castle still create an eerie atmosphere"...
• William K. Everson's essay "Horror Films" in January 1954, , also praised the opening sequence, but damned the publication for being "plodding", "talkative". Rhodes notes that "Geltzer and Everson became the model for subsequent criticism." with Everson again stating in his book Classics of the Horror film (1974) that the film was "stilted" and "pedestrian"
• Carlos Clarens in An Illustrated History of the Horror Film (1967) "a soon as the action moves to London, the picture betrays its origin on the boards, becoming talky, pedestrian and uncinematic."
• John Brosnan, in The Horror People (1976) "a very static and talkative film, apart form the early scenes, set in Transylvania...Lugosi's perfomrance attracted praise, but seen today it seems too theatrical and even a little ludicrous."
• Leslie Halliwell in The Dead Walk (1986) "[Dracula] has not maintained its original impact. That is is watchable at all is probably due to strange tricks which Bela Lugosi performs [...] the almost total absense of music doesn't help"
• Tom Weaver in Universal Horrors (1990): "The flaws in Dracula are so self-evident that they are outlined in nearly ever critique: Only Lugosi freaks and the nostalgically inclined still go through the motions praising and defending the film.... [Browning] indulges in wearisome long takes"
• David J. Skal in Hollywood Gothic (1991): "the first two reels are without question its stronges and provide the main reason for the films enduring fascination. The Transylvanian sequences have, however, been routinely overpraised in terms of their direction and cinematography"
• Andrew Tudor in Monsters and Mad Scientists: A Cultural History of the Horror Movie (1989): "[Dracula's Critics] observe, rightly, that even by the standards of the day the film is slow and stagy..."
• This isn't even going into the critics commenting on the props (fake spiders, bats on strings, a piece of cardboard mysteriously attached to a lamp (?), etc.) but generally speaking, I don't think we're ignoring anything. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more for good measure from MetaCritic: here.

• Pauline Kael, in the New Yorker: "directed by Tod Browning, was adapted from a play based on the Bram Stoker novel, rather than from the novel itself, and it becomes too stagey."
• Dave Kehr, The Chicago Reader: "The opening scenes, set in Dracula's castle, are magnificent—grave, stately, and severe. But the film becomes unbearably static once the action moves to England"
• Time Out: "Not by any means the masterpiece of fond memory or reputation, although the first twenty minutes are astonishingly fluid and brilliantly shot by Karl Freund, despite the intrusive painted backdrops."
• ReelViews: "it is ragged around the edges, but the film's weaknesses are not enough to prevent it from being appreciated. Dracula is not scary; it's a little too campy and hokey to be so (especially by today's standards)"
• Even Roger Ebert in his retrospective, while giving it a 4/4 rating, says ""Dracula” still a terrifying film, or has it become a period piece? The "most chilling, genuinely frightening film ever made,” vows the reference series Cinebooks. Perhaps that was true in 1931, but today I think the movie is interesting mostly for technical reasons--for the stylized performances, the photography, the sets." Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I replace the poster on the Orlac page with a file of the silent film adaptation? I think it might be more meaningful to give readers easy access to a film instead of showing them a poster. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do you mean on the book article? No strong feelings either way, it couldn't hurt, I don't know how close it is to the novel and as the plot in the book section is a bit weak, I don't want users to think they are 1 for 1, but I suppose its probably fine. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look at edits by the way on the book article. :) I keep looking at the video there and am half-kicking myself for not thinking of it earlier. (also, good catch on the dates as well. That was a dumb mistake on my part). Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might go through the book so I can expand the article but I cannot find an online English translation. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org seems to have an English version here if you have an account there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the verifiability of this claim. You cite page 28 of the book "San Francisco Bizarro" by Jack Boulware as your source. Unfortunately, the preview I found of the book ended at page 26, and I have no interest in ordering a copy just to read one page. My question is what are the exact words in the book on this topic? Maybe I have not searched hard enough, but I cannot find any corroborating evidence that Tina Louise is a LaVeyan Satanist. What little I did read of the book seemed more like a sensational tourist attraction guide, and it hardly seemed like an authoritative enough source to officially list her as a Satanist. 76.14.244.107 (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As the church grew, it attracted prominent celebrity members like Sammy Davis Jr., Jayne Mansfield, and Tina Louise." Marilyn Manson is a LaVeyan Satanist and his memoir, The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, also mentions that Louise is a LaVeyan Satanist.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Just wanted to let you know, I have been working on expanding the article on the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre in a separate userspace so I can work uninterrupted. SO far it has been going well though I have slowed down on working on it. I saw you have been editing away at the main userspace and I thought you might be interested in working on it with me. If not I understand. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your goals for the expansion? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MagicatthemovieSJust wanted to give you a heads up. I created a separate articles dealing with the Legacy and Analysis of the Texas Chain Saw film to ensure any edits don't bump into each other and cur down on the article length. Paleface Jack (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eric Weinstein. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing with categories? Do you even know what articles you are adding to these categories? Even it wasn't for the apparent blind ignorance, I'd consider it vandalism. CAVincent (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeatedly adding pagan categories to Aleister Crowley. Modern religious scholars consider it a "revelatory" new religious movement. There was an incorrect statement in the article, sourced to a non-expert in a media article about Kenneth Anger, which I have now removed, yet you still insist on adding the category. The article on the religion itself, Thelema, does not categorize the religion as pagan either. I opened a section on the talk page, but you continue to revert my removal without discussing there. So please engage in discussion or desist. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Donald Trump. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be 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 noticeboards.
• 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Meters (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Alejandra Caraballo, you may be blocked from editing. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alejandra Caraballo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violati, ng the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MagicatthemovieS, Glad to see you still here after a "somewhat rocky" Nov. 5. We certainly don't want to lose any of our more knowledgeable "liberal" editors, simply because of the election of one certain "clown!" He certainly wasn't the first clown to make life a little more "interesting," and he probably won't be the last.

We certainly need more folks around here who know about "clowns," so please stick around? Life is a cabaret my friend, everything's sorted in the end.

Kudos,

Lzoriogrande (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]