Harmony944

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Harmony944, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Open Season 3 edit

Your edit claiming to revert vandalism on Open Season 3 was in error - in actuality, you restored the vandalized version of the page, adding false sequel information, incorrect cast listings, and links to deleted pages. Please do not make such edits again without either discussing it on the talk page first, or giving valid references for your changes. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

really? What about Matt Munn being Boog and the other guy being Elliott? I'm pretty sure Joel McHale and Mike Epps reprised their respective roles as Elliott and Boog--Harmony944 (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

They did for the second film, not the third. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Open Season 3 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the page for Mike Epps before you start calling me the vandal--Harmony944 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't use another Wikipedia page as a source - the revised listing is the correct one, and I've removed all the Open Season 3 & 4 references from the Mike Epps page as well. All of these fabrications over the Open Season articles can be traced to one editor with a history of adding false content. Please do not revert to his incorrect versions again. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So staff of this very website can't be trusted, wow, so sad. I have to be honest, I thought you were the user that the fabrications were from. Looking back through the revision history, that's what it looked like to me. I'm sorry--Harmony944 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No, what happens is I caught this editor making an edit on an unrelated article, looked into it, and which led me to discover a long-term pattern of either falsehoods that no one caught as they developed gradually, or just outright hoaxes. Had you bothered to ask beforehand, this would have been explained to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Stewie Griffin. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article The '90s Are All That, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Digifan23 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: The 90s Are All That

First off: I can't police that page all the time... I too found the claim that this was going to be a permanent block quite dubious. If it had been one person editing the page with that I would have immediately removed it, but I looked through the history and several people had put that information in there without anyone else trying to remove it by the time I found it. That's why I tagged it instead of removing it myself, expecting that if it was an elaborate hoax as I expected it to be someone with more direct knowledge than I would immediately remove it. As for whether or not it coincided with the Olympics, it did, and these special blocks usually coincide with events, but whether or not it was an intentional coincidence, well, I may have stepped a bit too far into WP:OR. I understand your frustration but please don't take it all out on me! J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Except there was no direct reference to the Olympics whether it was the Nickandmore tweets, article, or block Facebook post. It's not permanent, obviously, and saying it's Olympic based is speculation. It's as simple as that--Harmony944 (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it appears the same types are at it again... they're citing the source as the 90sAAT Facebook page, which only mentions this past weekend anyway. I've removed it again and put a comment in warning (and on the talk page) them not to do it again or I would request protection, but you might want to keep an eye on it just in case. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully that'll stave off something. Also, keep in mind that they for some reason made a separate table for it, and while citing the facebook page, they never cited a specific post. The fact that I had previously added about Power Rangers considerations explicitly made on a post made by the block on its Facebook page, going as far as to cite the specific post, would (by precedent) make their justifying, general citation even more unacceptable.--Harmony944 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Stop modifying my list of pages to be moved. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I edited the list based on the discussion made. Don't move pages if you can't find legitimate reason to do so--Harmony944 (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. You are not allowed at all to edit anyone else's comments without their express consent regardless of your own determination of the debate. This is the second time you highly refactored my requested move, and the first time resulted in the discussion being removed from the listing. Do not do it again, or I will seek punitive measures.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comments. I edited the list based on the discussion at hand. You removed my comments you fucking hypocrite--Harmony944 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not allowed to edit the list because I was the one who posted it. And I only removed your comments because you put them in at the same time as your mass removal of the list. I immediately restored them with my next edit so stop making yourself out to be the victim here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

What's with the venom? You're the one making yourself out to be the victim here--Harmony944 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the person who's twisted someone else's words and claimed hypocrisy when none exists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

When did I twist your words? The usage of "crazed"? I used WE, not I. You said the fandom was crazed. I am part of the fandom. Thus I used WE. Stop your bullshit already--Harmony944 (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say the fandom was crazed. I said that they had a "crazed definition" of something. Stop taking it as a slight.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop using the <big> tags. It's rude.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce, you may be blocked from editing. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What I deleted is not a comment, it's a section break. Who are you to make these threats?--Harmony944 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You did more than remove the section break in this edit. And this not a threat. It is a standard warning template.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

All I did was remove the section break and merge your comments, removing the redundant signature. Your warning is completely uncalled for--Harmony944 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The commments should not have been merged because they were about two separate things. The section break is for ease of editing because we've wasted five days making circular arguments. Stop modifying my comments or edits to the talk page entirely. And stop using the <big> tag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The two comments were part of the same discussion. You're the one making the circular arguments while I keep bringing new evidence and new people into the discussion. I have never modified your comments. Sometimes they get overwritten in an edit conflict but I never modified your comments. You have zero reason to give me these warnings, let alone escalate them at a whim, thus why the ONLY comment removed was your second, completely unnecessary warning

"Stop modifying my comments or edits to the talk page entirely" IT'S A TALK PAGE, I'M ALLOWED TO PUT MY COMMENTS IN!--Harmony944 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I clearly meant "my edits to the talk page". Here you are again taking my words out of context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

But it's my talkpage, and you have no reason or right to warn me. The escalation had no justification, and shows how you are just trying to intimidate me with nothing.--Harmony944 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do because you keep refactoring my contributions to the talk page. Stop removing the extra section header.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

"Refactoring"? You keep using that word. I don't think you're using it correctly. "Refactoring improves nonfunctional attributes of the software." Your section break has no function except disrupting the flow of the conversation. It's completely unnecessary, just like adding a colon to Power Rangers season titles--Harmony944 (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a section break. It's meant to be a break. It doesn't even disrupt the flow. Just let it be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You just said it's meant to be a break, ie breaking or disrupting the flow of the conversation. Why don't you take your own advice and "Just let it be"?--Harmony944 (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It's meant to be a break because there needs to be a break. You know how long the page is because you kept removing other stuff to make it shorter, including completely disrupting the requested move process.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

At this point, Ryulong, you're not even debating. You're just arguing. And you took the argument off of the relevant page to accomplish...well, I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish. Please, quit while you are behind. You are making yourself look like an ass.Shadowbird712 (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

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:Harmony944 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: ). Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to tango, bucko--Harmony944 (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring on my user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. You are. I left the comment, therefore by your logic, you're the warlord--Harmony944 (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Harmony944, if you revert Ryulong's removal of your message to his talk page one more time I will block you, regardless of the outcome of the WP:3RN report.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Ponyo, can you explain to me why you're attacking me when you refuse the context? Why is this threat okay? Why is him reporting me for no reason okay? I left the comment, explained my reasons, there is no reason why it shouldn't be there--Harmony944 (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You are edit warring to vindictively restore a message to another user's talk page after they have legitimately removed it. It's disruptive and needs to stop. I'm not attacking you, I'm informing you of the outcome of your actions if they continue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Vindictive (adj) having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge.

How was the comment unreasoning? How did it show any sign of "revenge"? How was the comment "disruptive"? If you would've actually read the reasons maybe it wouldn't have been so unreasonable to you!--Harmony944 (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

From your own words after adding the message to Ryulong's user talk page for a third time "After all the shit you put me through, even going as far as filing a sham of a report, this is extremely necessary". That sounds pretty vindictive to me. Regardless, you've been blocked for edit-warring elsewhere, so it's all moot.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you remove something from your talk page it means you've read it. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLANKING: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents." And WP:NOT3RR: "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

How was I supposed to be aware of this? I wasn't when I made the reversions. Ponyo's threat is utterly uncalled for--Harmony944 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You had Ryulong's edit summary "I'm allowed to remove things from my talk page just as much as you are allowed to remove things from yours" but I can understand you not wanting to take that at face value. In these cases, you could ask another experienced editor or at the WP:HELPDESK what the rules say. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmony944 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The person who reported it did it as a sham. There was no reason for me to be reported in the first place. Read the comments of the report please. The person who blocked me gave me no warning. I at least deserved the right to a discussion BEFORE the block

Decline reason:

You clearly were warned, you just removed the warning. You contribution history clearly shows that you were engaged in an edit war over one of the most petty things I +have every seen an edit war over. You are lucky it is such a short block. When it expires please do not edit war any further. The other editor, Ryulong, was also blocked for the same reason. Chillum 20:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmony944 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was warned for removing comments. I never removed a comment on the Megaforce talkpage Section headers are not comments. Being warned about removing a section header was completely unnecessary. Claiming section headers as your own makes zero sense

Decline reason:

Warned, persisted, blocked; lookes coorect to me. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Have you read our WP:Edit warring policy? It does not matter if it was a section header, you can't flip a page back and forth filling up the history and our databases with junk. You realize every time you change a page another copy of it is stored right? Chillum 20:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

And? What's your point? There's nothing that mentions section headers. He was the one adding junk data! Isn't unnecessary and redundant data supposed to be removed?--Harmony944 (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Every single version of the page is stored. When you flip between 2 versions 20 times you create 40 new copies of the page. You were not trying to remove unnecessary and redundant data, you were insisting the page be the way you wanted it.

My point is that edit warring gets you blocked. Your unblock request in no way deals with the reason for your block. You were not blocked because someone else owned the section header so talking about that will not get you unblocked. Both you and the other editor were edit warring and you were both blocked. Neither of you own the section headers. Chillum 20:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the request directly addresses the reason I was blocked. You claim the reason I remain blocked was I was warned. Yes, I was warned. Twice successively. WITH NO INCRIMINATING EDIT TO THE PAGE IN QUESTION IN BETWEEN. Ryulong unfairly fast tracked me to a block after two reversions. Not 40, not 20, not even 3, TWO. How can you even call that a war? And even when a supporter came in, you didn't bother reading our reasons why the removal was justified. Stick to the facts, not the hyperbole. The block is completely uncalled for. Plain and simple--Harmony944 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I believe you reverted six times.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

A very quick glance at your contributions shows you removing the section break more than 2 times, at least 4 and then some more reverts on other user's talk page. Rylong didn't fast track you to a block, he asked an uninvolved admin to look into the situation who then blocked both of you.

I am not going to debate this with you any further though. I will allow another admin to handle your second unblock request. Perhaps you will listen then. Chillum 21:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

18:57 and 19:01 only, according to my contributions. So are you telling me you justified my block because you believed I was edit warring but didn't bother to double check? And Chillum, this is only in regards to the Megaforce talk page. Other pages have no bearing--Harmony944 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself. In addition to the two you note, which were the most recent, there were reverts at 18:47, 18:13, 18:01, and 17:21. That makes six.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, six times. WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realize we can see all your contributions right? These are all reverts: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Chillum 21:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The last two don't count because they're on a different page, and to perceive the first one as part of malice makes no sense, because there was no way to understand why it was there. I thought it was a typo, and I had no way of knowing until Ryulong's second reversion. For all you know, anything before the direct reversion could've been the result of an edit conflict. You still haven't justified how by separating the conversation at a random spot, that makes it flow better. And I must reiterate: Section headers are NOT comments!--Harmony944 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmony944 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"Warned, persisted, blocked; lookes coorect to me." addresses nothing, looks like it was swiftly taken care of with no thought put into it, with misspellings and egoed tone

Decline reason:

Does not address the reason for your block (edit warring after being warned not to). Also see WP:NOTTHEM. As mentioned below, if you make further frivolous unblock requests your talk page access may be revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Abuse of unblock template

If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

You have just made a 3rd unblock request and have provided no extra information but instead were rude to the reviewing admin. I suggest you reword your current unblock request to address the reasoning behind the block.

If you continue to make unblock request after unblock request without addressing the issues behind the block then you will lose your ability to edit your talk page for the duration of the block. Chillum 21:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

But what about unconvincing block verdicts? That's a problem that I pointed out in my unblock request. Is that so wrong?

You blocked me after 2 reversions, and now you're warning me after a just-made 3rd unblock request to tell me that I'm "abusing" it? I'm taking a 3 chance rule with this. If this 3rd unblock request, given the proper thought and care, is rejected, then I won't appeal again. All I'm asking is fair treatment, and that 2nd rejection, well I said exactly what it was in the unblock request. I addressed the issues of the block in the intervening time between verdicts, didnt I? That 2nd decline addressed none of it!--Harmony944 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If this is the last unblock request you are making then fair enough. Your unblock request was not addressed because it did not address the reason for the block. Chillum 21:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying I wasted it? That's pretty unfair considering

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Harmony944 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was just talking about how just because what I did wasn't addressed in the box doesn't mean it wasn't addressed between the request and the verdict. There's such thing as context. I don't repeat myself in these because that would make it redundant and repetitive, but each declination gives me little reason to give up. Once enough passive-aggressive block verdicts are made (calling them "abusive" and "frivolous" for example) it stops being about what I did, but about how the appeals process was handled. I want a fair discussion with whoever's handling the case, and considering you're trying to block me for wanting that, I feel that it's not right to punish someone for wanting to appeal their punishment. If you feel that after the discussion I should wait it out, fine, but don't decline it by ignoring all the discussion that went on outside the box

Decline reason:

I was on my way to remove talk page access but was beat to it. You don't seem to be able to address the problems and instead want to focus on, well, the wrong things to address a block. Regardless, I am declining to unblock you. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

We Bare Bears page move

Your article move from We Bare Bares to Bearstack is premature. You need to find ample references that support the series' name change, not infer the name change through the name of the "official" (but not verified) Twitter account. We're not in a hurry to move pages and make major changes like this at Wikipedia. If you're in a hurry, you're in the wrong place. WP:NODEADLINE. If you move this article again before you have achieved consensus on the article's talk page, it will be considered vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/DigiRanger1994/status/610570714471645184 --Harmony944 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that your reference? Find something better. I don't see "verified" anywhere in their profile. If you make another edit like this without adequate sourcing, administrative intervention will be requested. Again, we're not in any rush. Find a trade article that explains the change, or find an article on an official website. Read WP:RS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Your recent editing history at We Bare Bears 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.
Your moves have been reverted by three different editors at this point, and edits have also been reverted. Any further attempts to move or to change the name of the article will result in you being blocked from editing. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of The Daily Show episodes (2002), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Six Feet Under. 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) 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

August 2016

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Liv and Maddie.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

What disruptions did I make? Adding facts?--Harmony944 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Harmony944. 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

Hello, Harmony944. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 in American television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBS Studios (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Harmony, you have now been reverted by three different users for a change actively being discussed on the talk page. I'm about to be the fourth to do the same. I don't have an opinion on the actual discussion, but I do have an opinion on the manner it's being carried out. You are ignoring policy and standard consensus gathering because you don't like it. Leave the article as it was, in its stable version, and make your case on the talk page. Whatever the consensus is there is the outcome we will adhere to. Sock (tock talk) 22:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not because I don't like it, it's because it ignores common sense--Harmony944 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But the discussion is still ongoing, a consensus has not been reached. You are actively dodging policy by ignoring an ongoing dispute and pushing your preferred method anyway. Wait until the talk page discussion is finished. Sock (tock talk) 16:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet you're still siding with ignorance despite evidence pointing out of your favor. I'm not the bad guy here. --Harmony944 (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: a series of vulgar and offensive remarks

Do any of the sources allude to this being the full justification as opposed to only the Planet of the Apes tweet, which is what started the firestorm? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Seems my work has been done for me (not that I wasn't going to, but I was working in related areas). Awesome--Harmony944 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 15:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not reverting to a "preferred version" and I'd appreciate if you'd actually understand the facts of the discussion--Harmony944 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I do. However, you don't have the WP:CONSENSUS in the discussion on the talk page, and constantly removing the content is edit-warring, per WP:EW. -- Alex^TW 15:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You must provide evidence that you care for facts at all. If you actually read the discussion, more people agree with me than disagree. Re-adding the information at this point is edit-warring and vandalism. So please do not revert me again

You still do not have the WP:CONSENSUS. If you'd read it, you'd know that votes do not count. Your recent WP:BOLD edit was reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Do you understand this? Also, accusing editors of vandalism can be seen as a personal attack per WP:PA, which you can be banned for. -- Alex^TW 15:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

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. -- Alex^TW 15:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are you allowed to accuse me of edit-warring and not adhering to consensus but I can't accuse you of edit-warring andvandalism when that's exactly what you're doing? You are held to the same standards as any other user, regardless of whether you feel you're right--Harmony944 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it's your initial edits and your initial changes that are being reverted by multiple editors. How many of the links I just gave you did you read? Why are you allowed to be the only editor to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? You are held to the same standards as any other user, regardless of whether you feel you're right. -- Alex^TW 15:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

See, you feel I'm wrong, but you haven't actually read the discussion. It has been pointed out with multiple sources, including those attempted to use against me, that the information you keep trying to re-add is not only wrong, but unnecessary. These are facts, not feelings, and consensus says that your feelings are not put above everyone else's, and your condescending attitude is not befitting of a Wikipedia editor.--Harmony944 (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

1) How many of the links I just gave you did you read?

2) Why are you allowed to be the only editor to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

3) Shall I list all of your reverts to indicate the magnitude of your warring? -- Alex^TW 15:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

1) I read the links

2) Clearly I'm not ignoring policy, but even if I was, that wouldn't be the case. You keep reverting me, which would make you just as guilty.

3) Why does it matter how many reverts I've made when they're specifically done to remove false and unnecessary information?--Harmony944 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Clearly you are. You seem to be the only editor allowed to edit-war, as "remove false and unnecessary information" is not listed under WP:3RRNO. Especially since it's your edits that are being disputed by multiple editors. Not mine. :) And it looks like this isn't the only time edit-warring has been raised on this very talk page... 4 years ago? Wow, you've been busy. -- Alex^TW 15:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So you're saying I'm warring with myself? World War II was only fought by the United States? If removing false information doesn't fall under an understood reversion, then what could? Maybe I'm just a victim of policy abuse--Harmony944 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No. You're warring against multiple other editors to put your edits in. Just you. You believe it's false. You don't have wide agreement for that. And now you've been warned by an admin... -- Alex^TW 16:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Those multiple editors, including yourself, are combatants whether you want to believe it or not. Again, just because you ignored the discussion, where multiple people agreed that it was wrong, and another agreed it was unnecessary, to justify reverting me, does not make me wrong--Harmony944 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Would combatants be necessary if the one editor forcing their edits didn't force them? No. You still do not have a WP:CONSENSUS. Read the link properly. Votes don't count. -- Alex^TW 16:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Then don't call it an edit war. My edits were in just as good faith as yours until I was condescendingly told to wait an eternity. Instead of going after me, why not throw in your two cents about what's actually being discussed so the conversation can keep going?--Harmony944 (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You are warring to put your edits in. Edit-war. They're not in good faith when you've been reverted by... tell me, how many editors? -- Alex^TW 16:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Words have meaning. To not call my edits good-faith solely because I have facts that you disagree with is disingenuous targeting. It doesn't matter how many people reverted me, they're just as much edit warrers as I am--Harmony944 (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

You're continuing them even after being reverted by... tell me, how many editors? And actually, they have a few reverts - you have all of them combined. -- Alex^TW 16:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Refer to good-faith edits as "vandalism" again and you may be blocked. Please read WP:NOTVAND. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The reversion came after the discussion had concluded, and yet was completely ignored. That doesn't sound like good-faith to me. But fine, I won't call it vandalism again, as long as my edits are treated on equal footing and not as lesser--Harmony944 (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If the discussion has concluded, and there's no consensus to change it, then you don't get to decide you can change it. It's not vandalism reverting you, and accusing other editors of this can result in permanent action. -- Alex^TW 16:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Then why are you accusing me of editing in bad-faith? How can you not see the double standard?--Harmony944 (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If the discussion has concluded, and there's no consensus to change it, then you don't get to decide you can change it. -- Alex^TW 16:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not what bad-faith means--Harmony944 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's the very definition of it from a Wikipedia perspective, not your personal perspective. -- Alex^TW 01:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2017 in American television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lifetime

2018 in American television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bad Boys

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 in American television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifetime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018: WP:DE warning

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Tiera Skovbye, you may be blocked from editing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's more disruptive to remove such information than to add it. This entire conflict hinges upon your belief that my information "seemed" to be untrue despite the multiple sources--Harmony944 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC

That's not how this works, and I'm quite sure you know that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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:Harmony944 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's not actually allowed and must include a report of all participants' wrongdoing. You can't cherrypick who to report just because you disagree with them--Harmony944 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018, Part II

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Tiera Skovbye. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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} 15:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did not revert a fourth time. I hit my max. I shouldn't be blocked because I never exceeded the three revert rule--Harmony944 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to violate 3RR to be edit warring. Given your history, I'd say 48 hours was lenient of NeilN. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

My history? If my history was viewed from an unbiased perspective, maybe 48 hours was too harsh. You can't block one person for edit warring just because they're the person you disagree with--Harmony944 (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It was viewed from an unbiased perspective. NeilN blocked you, not Amaury. -- Alex^TW 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, it was biased the minute my history was brought into it--Harmony944 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It was, against you. History is always taken into account with edit-warring. -- Alex^TW 15:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) [10][11][12][13]. WP:3RR doesn't differentiate between content, only the number of reverts. That's four. -- Alex^TW 15:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

What Alex said. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, you could try to actually use the article Talk page, rather than mindless hitting the revert button. Just sayin'. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? So I could have another discussion stall for days and be lectured about Consensus when Consensus was in my favor?--Harmony944 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You had no consensus. No other editor agreed with yours edits on this article. -- Alex^TW 15:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Not what I'm talking about--Harmony944 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is now. -- Alex^TW 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, yes – that's how it goes on Wikipedia. No matter how "good" you think an edit is, if other editors don't agree, that is that. Also, you might have gotten a fuller explanation with what was wrong with your edits, which might have been a valuable learning experience. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

No matter how bad an editor you think someone is, that doesn't mean you get to single them out in an edit war without reporting the other participants, no matter how "good" an editor you claim them to be--Harmony944 (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You were the only editor who broke WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly what edit-war reports are meant to be. It's up to the admin to view all activity and make a decision. It's up to another editor to file the report against the (one, in this case) editor who violated WP:3RR. -- Alex^TW 16:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Amaury says you don't have to violate 3RR to be edit-warring. So maybe you guys should get your stories straight. Don't absolve people of responsibility in an edit war just because you agree with them--Harmony944 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and you were edit-warring. They were not, as it was you that was forcing your edits, it was you that wasn't following WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. -- Alex^TW 02:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: As the blocking admin, you may be interested in knowing their continuation of edit-warring at Judge Mathis. -- Alex^TW 16:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: [14] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Did you look at the content you restored? It's quite promotionally toned and the removal looks solid. Would you have reverted me if I had removed the content, calling it "fluff" in my edit summary? Because at this point it looks like a bunch of pitchforks aimed at Harmony944 regardless of the validity of their edits.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ponyo, here. Editors better not be restoring sub-optimal material to "teach Harmony944 a lesson". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The stupidest part here is the insistence (judging by the reverting) that "With nearly 20 years behind it" is a totally acceptable not-at-all-redundant phrase to put before "Judge Mathis began its 19th season on (date)" like people can't figure out on their own that 19 is close to 20--Harmony944 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a matter of "teaching a lesson", being "right" or "wrong", or whether the content concerned was fluff. It's a matter of an editor jumping straight into an edit-war without discussion with the editor, right out of a block that was set to prevent the editor from doing that exact thing. The talk-page discussion post was made only after their third removal of the content. -- Alex^TW 01:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything youre claiming it's not about is exactly what you're making it about. You still think i was in the wrong here. I literally did nothing wrong and youre still trying to get me in trouble for it. I did exactly what every single one of you would do in that situation--Harmony944 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You yourself stated[15] "This is my third reversion". This indicates tht you were deliberately continuing to revert, and you were very aware of how many you "had left" before you broke WP:3RR. Do read 3RR: The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. (Their bold, not mine.) Also, why did you only start a discussion after your third edit, and not your first? Did you prefer to war? -- Alex^TW 01:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Put your damn pitchfork down already. You are literally incapable of seeing my work in a positive light. The established status quo (having been in place for 11 days) was my original edit. You are now trying to claim that anything more than one reversion is considered an edit war. Yeah, how dare I be cautious. No wonder you sided with the IP, because right now, you're gatekeeping and forcing me to play by different rules than everyone else, despite my being completely in the right.—Harmony944 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I will not, until you accept your actions. As I said: It's not a matter of being "right" or "wrong". I could revert 25 times because I thought I was right. That wouldn't be acceptable. Not all edit-warring is 3RR, but all 3RR is edit-warring. You edit-warred as you were constantly reverting, initially without any form of discussion. Again. If you were having issues, you could have asked for help, reported the IP, requested page protection. Why did you do none of these, and do down the reverting path instead? -- Alex^TW 02:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This was to the IP: Instead of repeatedly babbling in an effort to try to get in the last word like a child, you ought to try communicating in a respectable fashion. As I recommend you do. Do you think that was much better? And I'm not an admin, I don't block editors. -- Alex^TW 02:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

To say that this isn't about right and wrong when you're blatantly calling my behavior wrong is completely mind-boggling. You let multiple users use multiple policies against me, but yet apparently Status Quo only applies then, and not when a certain tone-fixing edit is in place for eleven days. Your behavior is disgraceful. You only bother to tell me how I'm allegedly wrong, when my initial edit was right in the first place and shouldve never been reverted. Now i ask you to never talk to me again.--Harmony944 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

More edit warring after block

Your block for edit warring above was not pointless as you stated here [16] where you are now instigating an edit war with me. Stop edit warring and discuss. 2605:A000:4641:6000:E54D:96B3:56AF:D13A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you are starting the edit war. My edits were there first. Your removal was uncalled for and unexplained. I already explained myself and it seems your only reason for re-adding fluff is a blatant attempt to delegitimize me as an editor--Harmony944 (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop being touchy. No one's "delegitimizing" you as an editor. We're saying stop entering into matters with this pugnacious bearing about you. I don't give a crap about what you're reverting or editing over. Discuss it first for God's sakes. This is why you were blocked. Get it now?! 2605:A000:4641:6000:E54D:96B3:56AF:D13A (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you didnt give a crap about who you perceived me as as an editor then you wouldn't have reverted me in the first place. Who I am as an editor according to you was the ENTIRE REASON according to the edit summary. Meanwhile the edit even predated the block by over a week.

PS: Never talk to me again. I wont take your disgusting condescending attitude or your harassment--Harmony944 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Harmony944, please assume good faith and attacking me with vicious characterizations. You will not demonize me or anyone else here who is trying to help you as condescending. We're all here trying to help you because you have a lust for drama. You've been tearing down Alex, you've been tearing down myself, you tore down the blocking admin, you tore down the original editors you were working with. Who is next? Your comfort zone in turmoil and verbal abuse will not be tolerated here. I have every right to talk to you as long as I'm trying to help you with your problem. 2605:A000:4641:6000:E54D:96B3:56AF:D13A (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Youre telling me to assume good faith while assassinating my character. (Redacted) --Harmony944 (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Channel Awesome subs

According to the source they never reached 1.178 million. Please cite where that number came from. It should specify YouTube subs though, that part was a mistake, as the YT subs is where much of the company makes its money. If you are referring to some other sub, you need to specify. In addition, this edit has a bit too much opinion (specifically the unverifiable or unsourced "company's further missteps", which is an opinion). Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I followed the Channel Awesome YouTube every day even during the fiasco and it had been well over 1.1 million subs for quite a while. I don't know why your source doesn't mention that. The 1.178 million is vividly in my head. Right now I am not on a computer that allows me to use something like the Wayback Machine (it's blocked)--Harmony944 (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Which is fine, if you can actually find a source to back up the claim. From what I have been told however, it syncs up pretty well, and it matches up to the minute as of this very moment. I have no horse in this race, I have not watched any of their stuff in probably 6-7 years. I am just a page watcher, and that page was obviously hit with lots of vandalism during the height of the controversy. So now, I just check it for neutrality and verifiability, which is why your edit appeared to flag what I was checking for. As for you assertion of "further missteps", the only thing they did publicly after the second response is do nothing, as in stopped addressing it, and simply went quiet on the matter. Hard to call that a misstep, that is Public Relations 101 compared to their previous actions. From an outsiders perspective, that second response was probably the worst thing they could have done. Yosemiter (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you're right on the 'further missteps' part. And maybe our timeframes were out of sync because I think I was starting by the initial rumblings and definitely remember tweeting out the day that they hit a 100K subscriber loss from all this. Does SocialBlade happen to keep a record of how many subscribers a channel had on a certain day? Because that'd really be helpful for sourcing--Harmony944 (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

On the SocialBlade site, under the Detailed Stats tab, there is a chart towards the bottom showing total subs with corresponding dates. It rounds to the nearest 10,000, but you can hover over the chart to get exact dates. I tried to do a history search on it, but did not find an easy way to go to a day-by-day tracker like it has for the 30-day history summary. From when I was paying more attention to the page, I don't believe it ever hit six figure losses, they were losing about 2,000-3,000 per day for the first week or so. I can't help with where the 100,000 came from though. Yosemiter (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Just in the interest of research, I took a look through the Wayback Machine archives for the YT page. Unfortunately there is no archive from what SocialBlade reports as its peak (April 1st-ish) when it was rounded up to 1.08m (and I feel like I remember seeing it just barely break that number when it was still on the 30-day feed). But in the last archive on March 29, it was 1.078m, so maybe that is where you got 1.178? (And for further clarification, on May 2, it was 1.016m, which I believe is when it more or less bottomed out.) Cheers, Yosemiter (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix!

Sorry for the primitive kudos - I'm new to this. Just wanted to THANK YOU for fixing the nonsense on the page for Once Upon a Time's Emma Swan! People are so silly (also, if you maybe wanted to be even more of a rockstar and fix the other vandalism made to her childs - Hope Swan-Jones - name by the same user, since I can't, that would be greatly appreciated too). You're great, cheers! Ost2011 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Regina Mills, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Darran Norris

Hi Harmony944. Based on the previous declines at Darran Norris I don't think it can be speedy deleted at this point, as speedy deletion is generally reserved for uncontroversial deletions, and multiple people have objected. Please feel free to take the redirect to WP:RFD if you still feel it should be deleted. Monty₈₄₅ 03:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

If it was really "controversial" then theyd give an actual reason as to what makes me nominating it for speedy deletion such a bad thing. It was a misspelling on SIX pages out of 700 nowhere near ubiquitous to call it "common". It's not my fault no one but me is following procedure. The nomination is supposed to be contested on the talkpage, not rejected outright--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 03:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The talk page contest rule only applies in the case of the original author, as often they make knee-jerk CSD removals, without a policy basis. Any other editor or admin is free to remove the tag if they have a good faith objection to the proposed deletion, as happened here. Its discussed around paragraph 6 at WP:CSD. Monty₈₄₅ 03:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Good faith doesn’t defy all logic to justify opposing what should be an easily-decided deletion—Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 03:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, someone obviously felt it would be helpful. While its arguable whether it meets the implausible portion of the criteria for R3, it clearly fails the recently created portion of the criteria, and so doesn't qualify for deletion under WP:CSD. Is this really something worth edit warring over when you could just take it to WP:RFD Monty₈₄₅ 04:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

For something to be eligible for speedy deletion it must completely and clearly meet one of the criterion in the policy policy. This redirect meets none of the criteria. Since it doesn't meet any of the criteria there it can not be deleted using speedy deletion. You should look at the section of the policy that discusses non-criteria, specifically #18. As you have been told above there is no requirement for anyone but the original creator to explain on the talk page why the page should not be speedy deleted, common practice is to remove the tag with an explanation. For redirects the next level of deletion is redirects for discussion. If you are as instance, as you seem to be that this redirect must be deleted, you will need to follow the directions there and nominate it for deletion. ~ GB fan 09:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

After looking through your talk page I am formally warning you that if you revert again on the page you will be blocked from editing. ~ GB fan 12:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

You’re literally telling me that someone can make a redirect claiming “Pibbley Derrington” could be a common nickname of literally anyone and it stay up literally forever because it meets none of the criteria for speedy deletion, but a spelling error that not even 1% (that is now at 0%) of the pages that link to the article use, has to go through a formal bureaucratic process? What happened to common sense? And I will never take someone who chooses to threaten blocks over using common sense lightly--Harmony944 (talk, Twitter) 14:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not telling you that. If someone creates an odd redirect and it survives for years before anyone noticed then it would need to go through the discussion process. If it is a new redirect it wouldn't need to go through the discussion process. Those are the rules that have been agreed to, I did not make them up or even participate in the discussions that led to them. The only reason I warned you is that you had already reverted 3 times and you have a history of edit earring. ~ GB fan 16:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Also I never threatened to block you. I warned you that if you decided to revert again on that specific article you would be blocked. If you didn't decide to revert again you wouldn't be blocked. It is all your decision if you get blocked over this. ~ GB fan 20:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

cmt

Sorry, would have just left you a note rather than a template if I had seen the rest of your edit.. Meters (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah no, no one else was contributing to the article. You yourself said it would be restored someday! You’re not addresing any reason based on its content why it shouldnt be a full-fledged article. The discussion was full of holes you refuse to address, and it sets dangerous precedent in terms of precedent and consistency. The article stays up--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!:. 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. The editor whose username is Z0 18:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but 1) I was not edit warring and 2) The person who reported me for edit warring has been harassing me since my first reversion today—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

- This is completely unfair! Everything you accuse me of is patently false, and youre not giving me a fair chance to defend myself. How am i supposed to provide my screenshots if i HAVE NO WAY OF POSTING THEM? This isnt resolving the issue, its sweeping it under the rug and completely disregards the definition of "disruptive". You hold your admins on such a pedestal that they're allowed to do anything, and the minute they're questioned by a lower user, you block them indefinitely because the site's technical limitations give the accuser no way to provide proof.

How is it fair to give me an indefinite block when ive only been previously blocked for 2 days?—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 00:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)