| Revision as of 06:20, 8 February 2021 editDPL bot (talk | contribs)Bots671,265 edits dablink notification message (see the FAQ)← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:26, 9 February 2021 edit undoAcroterion (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators232,969 edits →Talkpages: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| (].) --] (]) 06:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC) | (].) --] (]) 06:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
| == Talkpages == | |||
| They're there for a reason. Use them. Edit summaries and bluster at ANI are no substitute for consensus and explanation, especially in articles that have been extensively reviewed. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 04:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:26, 9 February 2021
broken citation in Gregory Peck
Hi, in your edits, you removed a cite definition resulting in an error (ref 229). Please review your edits and restore the definition, thanks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, what you did is called a named ref that had never been defined. I've undone that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Our Lady Peace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4 AM.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Your partner is editing again
A while back you had some issues with your partner coming home and editing as an IP on some of the same articles where you were involved in content disagreements. Just a heads up that your partner seems to have returned to this on entries such as Aerosmith. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Advice
Hi, I can see you're still getting into lots of disputes and edit warring, and I think I need to give some further advice.
Part of the problem you're running into is that you're walking up to good and featured articles and making wholesale changes to them, then getting argumentative when you are challenged. As Shshshsh explained when reverting you at Katharine Hepburn, "This lead is the accepted FA version, if you want to change it then discuss it on the talk page." While nobody owns articles, featured articles, and to a lesser extent, good articles, have been vetted by the community and there is a general agreement that what is presented is acceptable. And while it's also possible to do some improvements via copyediting, adding additional content without consensus or sources, and then arguing about it is just going to lead to you trouble.
My advice would be to focus on articles that need attention. A suitable place to start might be Category:Misplaced Pages articles with style issues by issue When an article has a maintenance tag at the top of the page, it's generally an indicator that nobody has worked on it extensively (or not recently) and therefore it needs work. If you focus on those sorts of articles, you're not going to run into issues.
I'm saying this because I'm concerned that the edit warring and incivility from you is likely to lead to a block if things don't change, and this is one way of doing it. Ritchie333 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Informed analysis. Thank you.--Ritchie333 21:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Genesis (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page That's All.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Talkpages
They're there for a reason. Use them. Edit summaries and bluster at ANI are no substitute for consensus and explanation, especially in articles that have been extensively reviewed. Acroterion (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)