User talk:AnneBerlyne MaKenzie

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AnneBerlyne MaKenzie, 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --rogerd (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of red links

I noticed that you removed several red links from Margaret Colin. Please review the guidelines for red links. They can often be useful, because even thought the article does not exist today, it may exist in the near future, and the existence of the red link may encourage an editor to create the article.--rogerd (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Raver

Hello! I have reverted your edit here to Kim Raver, which converted a filmography table to a list. I am not sure why you did this? Filmography tables are preferred to lists in Wikipedia articles of actors. Please see WP:ACTOR for more information on this. If you have, by chance, done this to other actor filmographies, I ask that you please revert your edits. In addition, I suggest that you start using edit summaries with your edits. This will allow other editors to understand your intentions. Thanks! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Foley

Hello. I have again reverted one of your edits here to Alina Foley, which converts a filmography table to a list. As I have already mentioned, filmography tables are preferred to lists. Please see WP:ACTOR for more information. You have not explained why you are doing this, but I am again asking you to stop. Thank you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Leon

As per my previous 2 posts, I have also reverted your edits here to Adrianne Leon, again converting tables to lists. Please stop, you are taking filmographies backwards. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Belknap

Hello! Thank you for your recent edits to the page Anna Belknap -- it's important that you know, however, that when you add anything to an article which is a biography of a living person you absolutely must include a citation. Wikipedia has quite stringent rules about biographies, and citations to reliable sources is extremely important. Thank you, and happy editing! Jhfortier (talk · contribs ) 05:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry About That

I want to apologize for reverting your edits twice on Sidney Prescott. My mistake, I had heard that Green had been cast as Sydney's cousin, but when I heard Roberts I suspected vandalism. Again sorry about that. Sami50421 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop converting filmography tables to lists

Please stop converting filmography tables to lists, as you just did here to Katrina Bowden. You have been asked to stop this several times already. I am unsure of what the problem is with understanding this concept, and you have refused to comment. Filmography tables are preferred to lists as per the guidelines at WP:ACTOR. You are taking Wikipedia backwards with these edits. If you continue to do this, it might be considered vandalism and may lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia.

I am also going to request AGAIN that you use edit summaries with your edits. This will allow other editors to better understand your intentions. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to support this warning. Absolutely please stop removing the tabling from articles. If you persist, it will be treated as vandalism. It is completely inappropriate for you to act to remove this work by other editors to a stark listing. I'm not at all sure what makes you think this is appropriate editing, but you're completely wrong. In addition, I noted that you have a habit of adding birth names to the lead of articles. Please don't do that either. It is proper to mention birth names in the early life section, but not in the lead sentence. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another point, the word is spelling CAREER, not CARRER. Please make an effort to spell additions correctly. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the conversion of filmography tables to lists

You're free to ignore the two editors posting above and their mischaracterization of what's been discussed at dat wikiproject. The consensus, after much discussion, is split. And the half dozen or so speaking in favor of using tables amount to a local consensus, which isn't one, really; see: WP:CONLIMITED and WP:Filmographies, which specifically recommends lists.

Also, this is an editorial issue and in no way involves WP:VANDALISM. WHL knows better and it is pretty rich for her to be asking after better edit summaries when she's quite remiss regarding those. Jack Merridew 02:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick, Jack. First, you are talking out your ass. I did not ask for better edit summaries, so keep your false assumptions right where they belong. Pick a place, I don't care. Take a minute in your wikistalking to at least attribute comments to the person who made them. I'm sick and tired of your wikistalking me and you and your cohort Chowbok sticking your nose into comments on other editor's talk pages. There is NO consensus for anyone to go about removing the work of other editors just because you pushed your POV about tables to a discussion. Local consensus my ass. Jack Merridew snowing discussion to push a personal preference, maybe. It is vandalism when an editor goes about arbitrarily removing work by other editors. This editor is NOT free to ignore comments posted to her talk page. Your pushing your POV this way across talk pages of editors whom you do not know is a very pointy and improper action on your part. As an administrator-wannabe, you should know that, although it is just more rationale for why you should remain a wannabe - inability to ascertain to whom to attribute comments. Jack Merridew - grade F. Get a grip, Jack, also, where I don't care. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point to WHL for my reading-together of the above comments. Points-off, for the rest, though. Jack Merridew 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Merridew--I think it is in very poor taste for you to start such an argument on this users talk page, especially with an editor that you apparently stalk for topics to war about. That said, it doesn't matter what you support. I support converting table headings to a bright magenta background. Should I go ahead and do that wherever I please? Absolutely not! It does matter what the guidelines are, they are here for a reason. According to the WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers Project Style Guidelines (a site which you should be very familiar with): "One of the project goals is also to clean up filmographies in actor and filmmaker articles from scruffy or backwards lists into presentable standardized tables that provide information." Until this states otherwise, Filmography TABLES are preferred. THAT is the current consensus. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CONLIMITED. Whatever WP:ACTOR asserts is not a 'guideline' unless the wider community grants it that status; i.e. a real consensus. The RFC I linked above specific found the local consensus to be split on this question. And there's IS the MOS page, which DOES have guideline status. Jack Merridew 15:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've already attempted to gather more consensus via the RfC. It failed. What more do YOU want? You've been blocked for this same type of nasty and disturbing behavior (stalking). When are YOU going to stop? It would be best if you'd remove Wildhartlivie from your watchlist and remove her contribution page from your bookmarks. Mike Allen 19:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike. Funny seeing you here. The tactic of trying to change the subject as you and teh gang are attempting has been tried before. It gets boring, really, especially to those who know how wiki works. fyi, I've no bookmark for WHL's "contribs"; or for yours. It takes moar, to rate that. My watchlists, however, are comprehensive, and quite large. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please talk and act like you're on "Wiki" and not 4chan. Mike Allen 20:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never participated in 4chan, although the b-tards have tried their best to get me, too. Jack Merridew 23:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only person who I see who needs pointed at is you, Jack. You've carried your POV war to yet another editor's talk page, someone with whom you appear to have no association. You may not have anything bookmarked, but it is crystal clear that you stalk my edits and that's just plain shitty behavior for an administrator-wannabe. I'd suggest you lose your irritating habit of using "internet-speak" and take up the fine habit of writing in ENGLISH. Back to the point, it is vandalistic to go about removing the work of other editors all the while not bothering to give any sort of rationale for it. That you are pushing your POV regarding filmography tables does not give you free license to follow anyone around and jump into things. It's poor behavior. And it's harassment. Try grasping some grown up behavior for a change. THat you engineered no consensus on tables does not give you an upperhand nor does it mean that anyone can just switch back because they feel like it. I'd think you could find something constructive to do with your time than harass me. But you know, if you don't, you don't. Kinda sad, really. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get over yourself. You are not that important or interesting. You're just and stubborn editor who's wrong about some core wiki concepts and who loves to revert. Jeers, Jack Merridew 06:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example of your arrogance and completely inflated sense of importance. Stop wikistalking me, Jack. If I weren't interesting, why on earth do you spend such an inordinate amount of time following me around to launch personal attacks? Some administrator-wannabe you are. Unable to control your urgency to harass someone. Talk about bad faith. You are a stalker and a harasser. Don't think your bad faith "jeers" signatures are missed. The only that won't be missed around here is your stalking and personal attacks. Personally, I find you annoying and mean-spirited. Get over your own self. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]