User talk:Chocolatejr9

Chocolatejr9, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Chocolatejr9!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Welcome!

Hello, Chocolatejr9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to continue. Some useful pages to visit are:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to 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)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikiproject Comics

Hi, I thought I'd let you know that there's a discussion concerning some of your recent edits taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. The relevant topic is "Category: Marvel Comics Characters". Your input would be appreciated. Happy editing!--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister U.S.

Hey, thanks for taking the time to do some maintenance editing on Mister U.S.! Might you be willing to go to Talk:Mister U.S., look over the comment that I left on the need to update the official website, and if you're convinced by that, make the edit? It would be appreciated. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (co-creator, Mister U.S.)[reply]

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

I don't understand the exact issue you're having with other editors in regards to the categories at articles like I Am Setsuna, but you should be discussing on talk pages rather than continually undoing each others edits. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I think he needs a temporary ban, as he's also doing this on the Dark Souls III page, ignoring every experienced VG project member, with a copypasted response each time he reverts back. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and Chocolate also reverted again without discussion at Setsuna as well. Chocolate, did you not read my message above that you need to start discussing this issue rather than continually reverting? You are now blocked for 48 hours. When you return, I hope you'll discuss with people to either persuade them you are correct, or listen to why you are wrong. Use talk pages, and only revert if there is a consensus in your favor. Sergecross73 msg me 02:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2016 video games

Stop removing category "Category:2016 video games" from DarkMaus and other RPG articles. I'm getting tired of reverting every single time. --103.62.68.227 (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought that the GP category rule applied to that category. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Whitespace

Please do not alter the whitespace around section headers in drive-by edits. It is there by preference of the editors and the standard is to not systemically change it. czar 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chocolatejr9. This type of editing is disruptive. You have continued despite being reverted multiple times and being pinged in a discussion about it at WT:VG. Your account will be blocked if you don't desist—fair warning. czar 17:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video games

Hey Chocolatejr9—thanks for your recent contributions. I noticed your interest in Wikipedia's video game content and thought you might be interested in the video games WikiProject. We've done some great work (over 300 pieces of Featured content and over 1000 Good articles), but there is plenty more to do. Come say hello on our talk page, participate in our current events, or let me know if I can help with anything. Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope I'll see you around. czar 14:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Please stop adding categories and continually re-adding them without any discussion or explanation. You've already been blocked for this once beforehand, and it's going to happen again if you don't stop.

Now please, explain yourself. What is your reasoning for this edit. The game was announced in 2015, and has not been released yet. So, in what capacity is it a game that is "introduced in 2016"? Note the past tense, so it can't be referring to a future release date. Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The game is currently stated to be coming in 2016. As such, it is safe to include it under the category. If the release date changes, we can change it accordingly. I'm just trying to organize everything, given that some categories seem a bit "overcrowded", and can be moved to sub-categories.

But the category say "releaseD". As in, already out. Your argument would be fine if it was just "2016 video games", because yes, it's likely to happen. But it's fundamentally wrong to deem the game as already out this year. Sergecross73 msg me 04:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, then. I noticed that it had been done with the other RPGs that aren't out yet, and thought it was ok. Thanks for the clarification.

Hello, I'm Sro23. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Modern Warfare Remastered without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolatejr9, if it wasn't already clear, the consensus is to not use "Role-playing video game by year" categories. The categories are in the process of being deleted, so the more you add, the more work it becomes for someone else to clean up. Instead, you could help by rolling back your edits. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Genre by year categories.) czar 03:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your recent edits are much more helpful. But I recommend not changing the DEFAULTSORT settings for now. Edits such as this one change the game's sort from "ultima 01" to "ultima i" (the letter "i"), so if you take a look at Category:Ultima (series), the game is now in-between "Ultima Forever" and "Ultima Online" instead of adjacent to "Ultima II". Also, if you plan to patrol pages to change one element, there are tools such as WP:AWB that can (1) assist with that, and (2) that will make general fixes to the page so that your edit isn't only to correct a single item. czar 21:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Role playing games by year

Although these categories have been nominated for deletion, they have not yet been deleted. Please do not empty them while the discussion is active; allow the discussion to resolve, then take action based on that resolution. Thank you. Mind matrix 14:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I had been told that it was okay to go ahead and move them. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Category:Female characters in video games

Hello, Chocolatejr9. Will you please explain the reason of your recent spree removing Category:Female characters in video games from a large number of articles? If this is the result of a recent discussion, it certainly hasn't been announced at the category's talk page. If you're going to make maintenance work that affects many pages, you should first announce and discuss it at the relevant Wikiproject to explain your rationale for the task, lest someone objects to the task (or suggests better ways to perform it). Diego (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that since the pages were already under a sub-category, it would be okay to remove them.(Chocolatejr9 (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Well, that's not something that you can always take for granted. We have some non-diffusing subcategories where the article should not be removed from their base categories even if the article is in the subcategory; I suppose you were lucky that Category:Woman soldier and warrior characters in video games‎ was not one of them (although before your changes it was working as one), and in this particular case your edits look like an overall improvement, as they've made the Category:Female characters in video games leaner and easier to follow.

Though even after the change, it makes sense that some characters are kept at both the subcategory as well as the base category, like Zelda -a female warrior who has also played the role of damsel in distress, or April Ryan and Lara Croft who have well know characterizations as female characters that are not necessarily warriors.

As I said, if you're going to change a lot of articles it's best if you seek feedback before making such large decentralized changes, and at the very least you should explain your reasons for such changes at a centralized venue so that others understand your intent and don't take your multiple edits as vandalism. Collaboration is a required behavior at Wikipedia. In the future, please take some extra steps to better explain your motives; I've seen some discussion regarding some of your past edits, also complaining that you were hard to reach and that didn't communicate enough with other editors. We have so many rules that it's easy that you'd overstep some of them without noticing. It's OK to be bold in your edits, but it's best if you're as open to feedback as possible. Diego (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Chocolatejr9. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi. I noticed that you are making mass edits that appear to be disruptive without explanation, notably, mass-removing categories such as Category:Video game franchises from articles even though these categories exist and seem to be appropriate for the articles. Please explain what you thought you were doing with these edits. In the meantime, I have blocked you from editing to prevent further disruption. Sandstein 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I had noticed that the Category:Video game franchises had a lot of articles in it, and had been trying to move them into the sub-categories in order to make it a bit more clear. Apologies for the inconvenience. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The what? With edits such as [1], how were you moving anything? You were just deleting categories. Sandstein 06:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's how you do it, though. In order to move it into the sub-category properly, you have to remove the GP category from the page.(Chocolatejr9 (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

No, not at all. To move a page to a subcategory, you replace the category with a more specific category, you don't just delete the category. And you obtain consensus before making mass edits, and you explain your edits in the edit summary. Looking at the messages above, this is not the first time you have disrupted Wikipedia with badly thought-out mass category edits. I conclude that you lack the competence to contribute to Wikipedia productively and am indefinitely blocking your account. You can request to be unblocked if you convince a reviewing admin that you will not cause problems again; see WP:GAB. Sandstein 14:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know as per discussed here I've removed the bulk of your category deletions. JAGUAR 10:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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

Chocolatejr9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I now understand why I have been blocked, and I promise that I will be more considering of my edits.

Accept reason:

Per your agreement in the discussion below to not edit article categories. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That promise sounds vague. I feel like a concrete ban would be needed, like a complete prohibition of mass edits, especially recategorization. Max Semenik (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean by that promise. I won't do anymore mass recategorizations unless I am specifically given permission to. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

This is something you've been at for nearly a year now, while ignoring constant requests for you to stop. If you're actually serious about your above promise, what caused you to have such a sudden change in your perspective? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might sound weird, but having it properly explained to me helped me figure it out. I edit for a lot of different Wikis, each with their own rules, and I often get them all mixed up. Since someone gave me a proper explanation, I now know exactly what I did wrong and will be wary of my edits from now on. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Why was what you did wrong? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was disrupting the category system of Wikipedia and not telling anyone what I was doing or why I was doing it. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Sandstein: Would you be amenable to a cautious unblock under the terms that Chocolatejr9 be topic banned from editing categories as they have suggested above?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sandstein 21:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolatejr9, I'm willing to unblock you if you will agree to not edit article categories. As you appear to have already committed to this in your reply to MaxSem above, I assume you are willing to agree to such terms for an unblock?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree to these terms. However, I have one question. If I see an error related to a page that should be put under a category, but isn't, how should I proceed if I can't edit it myself? Not to the point of mass-editing, but for more minor problems. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Categories are navigation aids, there is no imperative that they must be updated or changed immediately. Due to the problems you've had with regard to understanding how categorization works on Wikipedia you would be best served to stay away from them altogether. Do you agree to do so?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:56, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do agree. (Chocolatejr9 (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Kao the Kangaroo series

Template:Kao the Kangaroo series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your unblock condition by editing categories. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sandstein 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chocolatejr9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know this probably won't go through given that I was previously unblocked, only to get blocked again. However, I wanted to at least try and see if it would be possible to try again, as there is something that I wanted to try and help with on the Wiki, but I don't think I can do it without an account. I apologise if this request cannot be fulfilled.

Decline reason:

"I know this probably won't go through given that I was previously unblocked, only to get blocked again." Correct. Once bitten, twice shy. — Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.