User talk:Beforesunsethighnoon

June 2019

Hello, I'm Nightfury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are providing a source that is not reliable, we cannot accept blogs or original research as acceptable sources. Thank you. Nightfury 10:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I like the fact that you found the need to come on my page and condescend regarding the quality of my sources, but have provided none of your own, nor felt the need to appear on the talk page where I posted on this very topic. I've cited the art book, so if that's not enough for you, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and argue some more about something DeBlois has been insistent on since the first trailer dropped. Got2Hands (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kiwi Farms. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." The article, as it stands, makes it sound as though the purpose of Kiwifarms was to gang up on a transgender webcomic artist on the grounds of their being transgender, which wasn't the case. In fact, one of the original grounds people trolled Chris-chan on was that she was, at the time, vehemently homophobic. Got2Hands (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have no idea what's going on over at the Kiwi Farms page, but I've had my edits reverted once for "vandalism" and once for "screwing with refs" when I didn't touch said refs. Kiwi Farms is a complicated place with a long, complicated history and the entire article is rife with misinformation, largely gleaned out of the Margaret Pless article listed in the citations. In addition, the webcomic artist in question is currently on twitter calling for people to vandalize the article while Kiwi Farms users have also posted here and it's all a complete mess. Got2Hands (talk) 07:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an extension installed in your browser that changes mentions of T-r-u-m-p? It looks like even if you didn't intentionally change the page, your browser did. You'll need to disable that extension while editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, okay, that's it! It's never given me trouble before, on this site or any other, so I figured people were just being unpleasant. My bad, apologies! Got2Hands (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soul reviews

Hello. I'm not sure if you saw the film yet or not. However, it does not appear the critic did who you insist on including. The character she has assigned a gender and a race has neither and is a non physical being in the astral plane, which is specifically spelled out in the film. As I am not the only editor who noticed this and removed it please do not re add it without a discussion on the talk page first. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion on Soul's talk page to address this. Please discuss with me there as I am interested in your rebuttal. However, please don't re add it at this time, as that would be considered an edit war. Maybe one of us will convince the other of something we are not seeing. If not, then others can chime in and the ultimate decision will be based on that. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Soul (2020 film); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Soul (2020 film)) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I tweaked my entry rather than simply readding it as was, and legitimately didn't realize that that wasn't a step towards a solution; the last few major edit wars I've been in, it dissolved the entire conflict immediately. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and will refrain from doing this in the future.

Accept reason:

Okay. You did discuss on talk page further and the warring seems over. Thank you for your good faith efforts on this. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowie

Thanks for your edit summary. I didn't realise you had raised this on the Talk page way back (I've gone back and found it - December 2021). I'm actually quite surprised no one responded. Given that they didn't, reducing it as you have done (rather than completely remove) seems a reasonable compromise.

Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]