MrloniBoo
Welcome!
editHello, MrloniBoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Thomas Tuchel. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
October 2019
edit
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kylian Mbappé, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
December 2019
edit Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. An edit that you recently made to Mesut Özil seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
January 2020
edit
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SolarFlashLet's talk about it 15:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 19
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tiger Zinda Hai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kabir Khan (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) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at So Much Fun, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
TheFamousPeople.com as a source
editHi MrloniBoo. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source in Paul Walker. Please note that the general consensus as expressed at WP:RSN is that it does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. I've gone ahead and removed it. If you disagree, let's discuss it. You may want to check WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help determine if a source is reliable. Thanks.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I reverted you here because, like I stated, the reason James is often compared to Jordan is because James is often discussed as the greatest. It's not because he's one of the greatest. Otherwise, many others would be frequently compared to Jordan. That it's common for James to be discussed in the context of the greatest also belongs in the lead and is part of his legacy. It's a part of the Legacy section. It's WP:Lead material. As seen at Talk:LeBron James/Archive 5#Status as "greatest ever", how to relay the matter in the lead has been extensively discussed and an approach (a less contentious one than what was there before) was finally settled on.
On a side note: Per WP:Minor edit, please don't mark edits like that as minor. That wasn't a minor edit. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. Will you discuss stuff like this on the article's talk page? WP:Edit warring is not ideal. And we don't want to engage in that per the consequences noted by that policy. I noted, when reverting your "in NBA history" removal that "We mean 'in NBA history.' And that sounds more encyclopedic than 'ever.'" So it seems that you took this into consideration and used "in the world" this time, but we still technically don't mean any basketball player in the world, considering that we can't assess every basketball player that exists; we specifically mean "in the NBA." Not to mention that "in the world" will eventually be outdated once the analysts crown someone else as the best currently playing or once James retires. That is one reason I reverted you this time, but it's not the biggest reason and I don't strongly oppose "in the world." The biggest reason I reverted is that, like another editor recently stated, the text in question is too wordy as one sentence. It's best as two sentences. And, yes, like I mentioned above, it's important to note that James is often considered the greatest NBA player of all-time. But if we just leave it at that, people edit war over it a lot because they feel that it contradicts the lead of the Michael Jordan article or specifically contradicts Jordan widely being considered the greatest NBA player of all-time. Multiple different wordings have been tried...to combat the edit warring and satisfy readers and/or editors, but no wording is going to satisfy everyone. I'll try to think of yet another way to reword the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bologna F.C. 1909, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Professional football.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
edit | 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 |
January 2021
edit
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
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! power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mesut Özil. not only was your edit summary misleading, it definitely did not fix anything. Please stay off the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
edit Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mason Mount, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Brojam (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrloniBoo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Katrina Kaif that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Diff: [1] This has been brought to your attention before. Please adhere to WP:MINOR. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
editHello MrloniBoo. Thank you for your recent contributions to Thomas Tuchel. Wikipedia has a specific definition of what is a "minor edit", and a couple of the edits that you marked as minor (e.g., 1, 2) do not meet that definition. In general, any edit that changes the meaning of any part of the article (including by adding or removing content) is not a minor edit. Please keep this in mind in the future. Cheers. Rublov (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)April 2021
editHi, your recent edits have been deemed disruptive. Please do not remove or change any content from the article's Lead section and First sentence without any reliable sources to back up your claim. A consensus has been established about this topic on the article's talkpage, Please do not disrupt other users with your unsourced edits.
Stop your disruptive and unexplained content removal in different articles as you've been seen doing regularly. Looking at your entire edit history you seem to be removing properly sourced and referenced content from many articles without any valid reasoning.
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability.
Don't leave the edit summary blank, explain what changes you've made to the article.
And stop trying to mislead others by checking the "This is a minor edit" box when you've made substantial and controversial unexplained edits to the article. Thank you.
--- A Wiki Genius ❤ 15:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrloniBoo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. (Related edit's diff 1, diff 2)
--- A Wiki Genius ❤ 16:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Drake (musician). This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. (One of the Diff).
--- A Wiki Genius ❤ 17:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi MrloniBoo, edits that you marked as minor like this one are inaccurate. Please, do not try to mislead others. You've been warned multiple times regarding this same issue.
--- A Wiki Genius ❤ 19:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
edit Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 violating 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.
Two separate editors oppose your edits. You need to stop and follow WP:BRD. Sergecross73 msg me 23:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Gabriel Martinelli, you may be blocked from editing. Content not supported by source. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Mason Mount. Unexplained removal of content. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
edit This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Sergio Agüero, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 8
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Home Alone 2: Lost in New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
edit {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
MrloniBoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"Personal attacks" can be determined by reasonable standards to be a false statement; my complaints against Mattythewhite were in reference to his contributions, not anything related to, in any shape or form, to his personal characteristics, or anything else listed on WP:PA. I aimed to engage in discussion regarding our differences in edits, but was ignored, and so requested a review of his administrator status. Moreover, I feel to consider this block as arguably punitive; two users with administrative access attacking me.
Decline reason:
Unjustified accusations of vandalism are personal attacks.
--jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:29, 12 June 2021 (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.
MrloniBoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not directly accuse anyone of vandalism; I simply disagreed with @Mattythewhite's edits (who believes I did not do anything to constitute a personal attack). I aimed to engage in discussions, was ingored, and viewed WP:AIV as a method to resolve disputes without harming pages. Meanwhile, my response to @Bbb23 relayed not to an objective determination that their actions were an attack, but how they made me feel; I believe I am allowed to relay my subjective opinion for how the actions of others affect my personal standing, regardless of the intent or purpose of the actions of others.
Decline reason:
Block is due to expire tomorrow anyway, but this still does not really seem to address the behavior that led to the block ... namely, AIV is not a conduct noticeboard; it is for reporting vandalism such that referring someone there and requesting a review of their status as an administrator is, indeed, a direct accusation of vandalism. You are welcome to share your subjective feelings in an appropriate manner, but you are not free to use AIV as you did. Go Phightins! 22:41, 12 June 2021 (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.
{unblock|reason=If WP:AIV is not a method to request review, I ask to be directed to the conduct noticeboard. I am using this unblock request to ensure my queries are flagged to the appropriate users for which this can be viewed and responded to.}}
- Don't abuse the unblock template. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
August 2021
edit Hi MrloniBoo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. NJZombie (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Donda
editYour most recent edit showing the release date is not correct and the source does not support that date. Please revert it.
September 2021
edit Please do not add or change content, as you did at Certified Lover Boy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
editHi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to The Weeknd.
If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.
If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 19:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.
November 2021
edit 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, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. FMSky (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
This is a featured article. Completely rewriting/rearranging the entire lead is not necessary. FMSky (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
edit| | 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 |
Disambiguation link notification for December 13
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited New York City FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red Bull Arena.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
December 2021
edit Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kingsif (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022
edit Hi MrloniBoo! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Gabriel Martinelli several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Gabriel Martinelli, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Please take it to the Project Football talk page as ItsKesha suggested.. Mako001 (C) (T) (The Alternate Mako) 13:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gabriel Martinelli. 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. Your preferred version of this article is in violation of WP:NOTDIARY, which is a Wikipedia policy regarding article content. If you continue to violate this policy, you run the risk of having your editing privileges suspended. Reviewing your talk page, it appears that you have received numerous warnings regarding your editing habits. I highly recommend you take to heart that if you are told something you have done is in violation of policy that you should stop what you are doing. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi MrloniBoo! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Mixed to negative?
editMixed to negative? Please don't do that. If in doubt read the past discussions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative
That wording is strongly discouraged. Try to weigh up the aggregator scores and come up with a fair overview, or leave it out. Don't equivocate, it is not good writing. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
April 2022
edit Hello, I'm SLBedit. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Bruno Lage 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. Thanks. SLBedit (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Conversion templates
edit
Please do not include conversion templates in the infoboxes of Indian films, as you did at Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film), as this is contrary to consensus at WP:ICTF - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Commercial success
editHi, I would request you not to add the phrase "commercial success" to music albums, because unlike most films which have publicly-disclosed budgets, music does not. You don't know the money that went into producing and promoting the work, so referring to commercial success is editorializing and guesswork. DA1 (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
edit You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Honestly, Nevermind. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Ek Tha Tiger. - Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Race (2008 film).
It was clearly explained, above, that you should not add conversion templates to the infoboxes of Indian films, but you have continued doing so. Please stop - Arjayay (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Tiger Zinda Hai, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
It was clearly explained, above, that you should not add conversion templates to the infoboxes of Indian films, but you have continued doing so. Please stop - Arjayay (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Your edit to Ek Tha Tiger has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
September 2022
edit Hi MrloniBoo! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Casino Royale (2006 film) several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Casino Royale (2006 film), please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. DonQuixote (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Quantum of Solace 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 violating 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. General Ization Talk 04:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Casino Royale (2006 film) 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 violating 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. General Ization Talk 04:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 14
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022–23 Paris Saint-Germain F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlos Soler.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Drake
editHi, you removed my edit to the lead, and you said it wasn’t constructive please explain how. Also the lead states he is responsible for popularizing R&B sensibilities in Hip Hop and that has been widely contested. Kanyfug (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Kanyfug, please do not produce wholesale changes on the lead without discussing first on talk page. The accepted edit has sustained for a lengthy period of time. MrloniBoo (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit request for section "2021–2022: 100 Premier League goals and team struggles" in Cristiano Ronaldo
editHello! I see the information In the next Champions League fixtures, on 10 October, Ronaldo scored again a last minute winner, with second coming seconds before the full-time whistle, as United overturned a two-goal deficit in a 3–2 home victory against Atalanta is seriously misleading about the time of the match between Manchester United and Atalanta, it's 20 October 20, not 10 October. Can you fix it? Hongkytran (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed it :) MrloniBoo (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 31
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drake (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Infobox timestamps
editHello, I'm Mattythewhite. Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.
You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.
If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please keep this in mind. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 10
editAn automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drake (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XXL.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Update the date
editWhen you updated Erling Haaland's club statistics, you didn't update the date. That made me think it wasn't updated so I added an extra appearance. Please always update the date when you update the statistics. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Critical reception in the lead
editPlease do not add your own personal analysis to film leads in the style of Rotten Tomatoes. Per MOS:FILM, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews." The source cited merely says "many fans campaigned for it be remade" without mentioning "screenplay, acting, direction, sports sequences, editing, and characterization" or whatever else. Nothing in the article says anything about this being "one of the worst sports films of all time", either. These seem to be entirely your own views. You can write a review on the IMDb about the film if you want, but on Wikipedia you can only quote what sources have already said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
- In this edit, you said that a film received "mixed reviews", but you didn't source this. You've got a talk page full of warnings, and you seem to be ignoring them. So, I'm just going to block you next time I see you add unsourced content. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
edit {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC)April 2023
edit Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. ManaliJain (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fast X, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)§ion=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Fast X, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)You're still changing sourced content to say things that contradict what the source says (for example, this edit). If you want to continue editing, you'll have make an unblock request and address this issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
MrloniBoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I only put information that was in the infobox into the main section of the article (in the case of White Chicks). I am incredibly confused as to how this warrants a block that violates verifiability, when I have consistently added information which is verified (see my various edits on Fast X for example: [example]). Can you please clarify on this block (with examples) so I know what behaviors to avoid? @NinjaRobotPirate: MrloniBoo (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
NJP did that above, "You're still changing sourced content to say things that contradict what the source says". 331dot (talk) 08:07, 2 June 2023 (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.
MrloniBoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
okay, I am now aware of the actions I am to avoid (I thought to change it primarily to avoid copyright, as I got a warning for that before, but I appear to have misread it) and can assure further edits won't be as damaging. Is there any way to reduce the block from being an indefinite one? I have provided constructive edits in the past; I will do so in the future (now I know that it's best to just retain what the source says, not to change it) MrloniBoo (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
From what I can see here, your conduct has been persistently and repeatedly disruptive. You have (and I'm not even sure if this is exhaustive) used false and misleading edit summaries, violated copyright, placed text into articles that misrepresented or contradicted what the sources used for that text said, and attacked other editors. Unless you can comprehensively address how you plan to improve your conduct overall, I would not be comfortable unblocking you. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:19, 4 June 2023 (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.
MrloniBoo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
well, prior to this block, I would have sought to engage in those practices in an effort to back my case; I am not trying to do that and I think getting older (without revealing my age, I was quite young when I first made this account) has something to do with it. I also understand what constructive edits are supposed to be for a wider purpose, as opposed to my own personal reading on things. I know this may be hard, but I'm requesting an assumption of good faith here; I don't really wish to engage negatively with admins anymore, and I think I'll mainly provide simpler contributions (like copyediting for grammar fixes or simple info additions with sources) as opposed to larger/core page edits. Like I said, it'll take a leap of faith but I can promise not to engage in the same behaviors as before; doing wrong is sort of needed to know what to do right, I think. I just need the chance to show it. MrloniBoo (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, the level of recidivism over a long period of time makes me disinclined to accept this unblock at this time, even though it is well worded. While your comments on maturity are reasonable, noting that this account is 4 years old, I would suggest a WP:SO waiting period of at least 2 more years before requesting an unblock again. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 7 June 2023 (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.