User talk:AbsolutelyFiring

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, AbsolutelyFiring, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Halloween Kills

Stop freaking changing the film's opening weekend. It was $49.4 million, not $50.4. The $50.4 were only estimates, while the $49.4 was the real number. If you change it one more time I will report you.

The real numbers are found here dummy: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/2021W42/?ref_=bo_we_nav

I didn't even change the film's opening weekend once. Feel free to report but I highly doubt anyone will bother over something I didn't do. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

RT template

Please stop edit warring by forcing the template into all articles. There is no consensus that is has to be used on all articles and you should use the talk page to discuss when your bold edit is reverted. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:21E8:C9B3:8567:1A83 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a consensus that it cannot be used? Since you don't you're edit-warring too by reverting me. I'll avoid it but it's not something for you to fight over. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I also suggest to you that you stop removing the average critic score. You are in fact the only one I see removing it whereas everyone else uses it. When people are not following your style, don't try to impose it upon the Wikipedia. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Also you actually never reverted me on No Time to Die. But added your own language and removed the part about average score. [1] [2] In fact you are the only one arguing over it, no one else has a problem. I think you should discuss your proposed changes yourself too and not just tell me I need to discuss. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

”Do you have a consensus that it cannot be used? I haven’t claim I have, but no, I’m not edit warring by removing it. See WP:BRD: you made a bold edit, I reverted you. That’s not edit warring. You re-adding it is edit warring. It’s not something for you to fight over, and no, it’s untrue to claim “everyone else uses it”: that’s an absurd and untruthful claim. I am not the one trying to impose anything on pages: you are. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:ACF6:C0FC:FB61:C6ED (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand what a revert is? [3] [4] You're just adding your own language and not actually reverting. WP:RV: "Reverting means reversing a prior edit or undoing the effects of one or more edits, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it." What you're doing doesn't count as a revert since you restored nothing. Also BRD doesn't exempt you from a discussion yourself. So nice try. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And btw look at any movie where RT has been used, yes everyone else does use average critic score. The Suicide Squad (film), Venom: Let There Be Carnage, F9 (film). Many others. I didn't add the average critic score. So quit your nonsense. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Jesus… yes, I know what a revert is; you seem to be struggling with it. “undoing the effects of one or more edits” is what I did in removing the template. You’ve not been here long, but you need to understand that forcing templates onto pages where they are inappropriate is not a great move, particularly when a good rationale was given when your edit was removed. The bottom line is you shouldn’t edit war, which is exactly what you’ve been doing. I’m out of this, because you’re obviously not in listening or thinking mode, but just gone into standard Wikipedian battlefield mode of arguing against common sense. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:ACF6:C0FC:FB61:C6ED (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You have to restore a previous version and not just remove something. That's like me saying someone said 100 dollars made, another removed it claiming no source says that, you add 500 dollars with a source, and then claiming it's a revert. Also you're talking about battlefield mode but I haven't reverted you once. Except on the unrelated part about average critic score because it's standard Wikipedia practice and your problem with it as one single person is not going to make it change. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And do note that the average critic score was there even before I edited the article: [5]. You removed it: [6] and are still removing it. So it's you who is actually reverting and per BRD need to discuss. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

”I haven't reverted you once”. Sorry, that’s a lie. You haven’t been here long enough to understand what you’re talking about. Carry on edit warring and I look forward to you being blocked for trying that defence. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:ACF6:C0FC:FB61:C6ED (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to understand the context of a statement. I was talking about reverting you after you contacted me and that's true. Except at the part about average critic score, because that was there before I even edited the article, and it was you who removed it. But when reverted you never cared to discuss and baselessly denied how including the average score is a standard practice. If you're going to have double standards like this then don't blame me. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I “baselessly denied how including the average score is a standard practice”: that’s another straight lie. Do you know how to tell the truth? FFS... good luck with all the blocks when they start heading your way. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:ACF6:C0FC:FB61:C6ED (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I gave you a lot of examples and btw go through my contributions. I didn't add average score to nearly all of the films. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Your constructive and helpful edits on Dune (2021 film)‎ are amazing for a newcomer. Welcome and thank you! — curiousGolden call me maybe? 22:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Last Night in Soho 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. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9532:D5BE:D54E:B8B1 (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page not showing

Hi!

So I just got a warning mention in which you are involved, and it mentionned that I was supposed to get it on my User's talk page but I got nothing. I was just wondering if it was normal. Also, if it's because it doesn't exist, that's because all my things got moved to User talk:Zamarak~enwiki in 2015 (probably because I was mostly on the French wikipedia previously, I don't know). Just want to be sure I got the message and I'm not missing any information. --Zamarak (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Someone else reported you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Zamarak reported by User:TheWayWeAllGo (Result: ). I only commented there because I couldn't understand the person complaining you. I have nothing to do with it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jungle Cruise (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday. 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) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Over

You keep adding qualifiers like "over" to rounded numbers. That is not good writing and I tried to discourage you from doing it but you did not even see it as a problem. There are so many Wikipedia rules it is difficult to know or even remember half of them but the Large Number and Rounding numbers guidelines already address this issue, I took me a while to find it but here it is:

MOS:UNCERTAINTY "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way"

-- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Was it so hard for you to not edit war with multiple people over it?

And btw I encourage you to read the last part of the policy you posted me: "unless the reader might otherwise be misled."

So yes, over can be used. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'd have to side with AbsolutelyFiring in the sense that it may be appropriate in some situations, particularly film articles where numbers may be growing fairly often on a daily or weekly basis during the film's box office run. Using "over $X amount" helps avoid concerns of WP:DATED and unnecessarily rounding up. For example, if the film's last reported gross was $260.6 million, I think it's better to write that the film has grossed over $260 million as opposed to saying it has grossed $261 million. By the time someone reads that, or if for some odd reason no one updates it for a few days, then the figure will quickly become dated and inaccurate. The use of "over" prevents that, because it is still accurate even if left neglected. Talk page stalker out! --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

GoneIn60, this person sought a consensus and no one has agreed with him on excluding over for mentioning BO grosses in articles. In fact every editor agreed that it wasn't inappropriate. Despite a consensus being against him he continues to remove it. Seems like I'll have to complain him if he won't stop edit-warring and listen to others. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding consensus

I don't know if you really care to hear any advice from me, but I figured it would be better to drop this on your talk page instead of continuing to interrupt at the article.

When material is challenged, then the burden of gaining consensus falls onto the shoulders of the editor(s) who want it included per WP:ONUS. It may seem unfair, but that's how it works when we run into a stalemate. The default is to exclude when parties disagree, until one party can show why it belongs in the article (and therefore gaining consensus). I've seen you claim multiple times now that no one is seeking consensus, but in actuality, that talk page discussion is the process of achieving consensus.

There are three possible outcomes: consensus to include, consensus to exclude, or no consensus either way. The only outcome that supports inclusion is "consensus to include"; the other two outcomes result in exclusion. Hope that helps in some way, and yes, I realize it can be a shock to newer editors who may not be aware that's how it works on Wikipedia. Just don't let that discourage you. We need more editors like yourself willing to discuss and work through disagreements when they happen. Plenty of work for all of us to do! Cheers! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

For sure but how long do you assume that window should be? Because my edits were sitting there for quite a long while (months actually) and the only one that had an issue was Adamstorm.

Also per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO (although not necessarily policies) the one making changes to long-standing edits should be the one to get a consensus. Regardless I stopped disputing myself so doesn't matter. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No, that's a very good point and often where things can get confusing, even for experienced editors. The more time that goes by without a challenge, the stronger the editing consensus becomes. However, consensus through long-standing edits is still the weakest form of consensus, generally speaking. That's because there's really no time limit on the ability to challenge; it could come days, weeks, or even months later. The best way to solidify consensus is through discussion after the challenge is presented. In contentious debates, the article is often reverted to the status quo version while discussion is taking place. That's the polite way of doing things, but not a requirement. Some editors simply don't have the patience for it (though I wish more did, because that's one of the best ways to avoid a heated debate).

So the status quo approach typically works well when one editor wants "apples" and another editor wants "oranges". Both want something added but just have different preferences. Where things get dicey is when one editor actually wants to remove contested material, not add. In those situations, WP:ONUS comes into play. Now the editor that added material – days, weeks, or months earlier – must achieve consensus to retain it through discussion or through dispute resolution. Because of WP:ONUS, the status quo holds less weight, especially if the opposing editor cites a policy as the reason. But here's the catch...despite having the edge, the opposing editor could actually take the high road and let the status quo remain, a smart tactic that actually encourages discussion on the talk page.

The most experienced editors will go right to the talk page, bypassing bold editing and bold reverting altogether. If you find yourself in this kind of situation again, simply come armed with sources that support your position. The more you bring, the better. I didn't mention WP:BRD (cause that would turn this into a novel!), but just know that it's a discussion tactic meant to stimulate discussion. It doesn't work well in a lot of situations, especially when multiple editors are involved. Instead, you may want to refer to WP:EPTALK for general guidance in this realm. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, one last note... In case you don't notice the link at EPTALK, you may want to keep this one handy: WP:BRB. It is a subsection of WP:BRD that describes common practices editors should use to avoid edit wars. Like you said, it's not policy per se, but EPTALK is policy, and it links directly to this section. If another editor isn't following one of these methods during an editing dispute (or they have a habit of not doing so), then the behavior can be grounds for escalation, especially if they are using bold, revert, revert incorrectly. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nova Kakhovka edits

Hey there. In re the edits to the above article, I'm curious: do we frequently add a 'Control' line to the info box in cities during active conflicts? I'll admit to being baffled as to the use of such a thing, especially with the fog of war being what it is. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tony Fox: I see your point but when Ukrainian authorities themselves confirm they have lost a place, fog of war isn't a reason anymore to exclude it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Totally understand that point. I should know better than to get involved in active conflict articles in the first place. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zhytomyr Airport attack‎

Hi, AbsolutelyFiring. Thanks for patrolling new pages. I've declined your deletion request for Zhytomyr Airport attack‎, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to read the new tutorial for patrollers, criteria for speedy deletion, and particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion or proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. Thanks! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)}  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  12:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Kherson

Hi, just wanted to point out that the same info has been added by another editor in the "2 March" section. RS didn't state that Kherson has been captured, but I watched Sharij and I knew it have. Pls be careful next time. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is Sharij? AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

[7] --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless it will be preferable if a print source is used. Most people can't understand someone speaking Ukrainian. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for efforts in expanding multiple articles to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Kharkiv (2022), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azerbaijani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no censorship

Yeah, but you can't show blood and gore. This is ogrish and punishable by law, not matter what policies were agreed on here. BTW, it's not "censorship", it's decency and respect for the dead as written in the Bible. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 04:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

First of all there's no gore, only blood. Secondly we don't regard any law on censorship or Bible here. Except keeping names of victims/suspects concealed. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

You have vandalized the article War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine again.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Again, if you have concerns, instead of edit warring and vandalising you should discuss them on the Talk Page of the article itself.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I already started a discussion on your talk page and had refrained from reverting. You didn't respond. I have opened a discussion at the article talk page. If you fail to respond, I'll have to complain. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Oops, I had meant to give you this last week! Thanks for your exceptional work in adding content to articles regarding the war. Curbon7 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

RE: Chernihiv Polytechnic National University

Just letting you know that I partially reverted your edits on this article. Just because the university's physical property was destroyed doesn't mean the university ceases to exist (tenure, enrollment). I didn't touch the prose you added, just removed the date of closure and the two cats. Curbon7 (talk) 06:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Curbon7 By that definition nothing ceases to exist because it can be rebuilt. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean with organizations, technically yeah. Unless there is an explicit acknowledgment of closure, it can't just disappear into thin air. An organization isn't necessarily a physical campus, it is the collection of people and ideas. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Release or Reception

You asked in your edit summary[8] shouldn't this be in "Release" and I've always thought of Ratings and Audience viewership as indicating how well something was received (box office too sometimes) so I've always preferred to put these things under Reception. (I don't think the placement was unintentional, without doubling checking the article history I would guess it was almost certainly User:TropicAces who put the Audience Viewership under Reception, and does so consistently across many film articles.) Some editors prefer to put this kind of information under Release (similarly this). I don't think anyone will be too bothered either way. I do prefer it under the Reception section though. -- 109.79.176.100 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It was a consensus reached by other editors. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

So you were asking a question in your edit summary that you already knew the answer to? -- 109.79.176.100 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking those who made the section as to why they did so. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)