User talk:Deathstroke64

November 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Violett Beane. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Violett Beane shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BilCat (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Violett Beane, you may be blocked from editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the confusion, but if you would check out Jesse’s Arrowverse wiki page you will find that her full name is canonically Jesse Chambers-Wells. I apologize for any frustration.

No confusion and see below. Discuss this on the talk page of the article. Also note Wikis of any sort including Wikias and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for anything so can't be used as a reference for any Wikipedia content. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violett Beane

I don’t know what to tell you, I attempted to politely resolve the matter but it didn’t work out Deathstroke64 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Violett Beane#Names as per WP:COMMONNAME

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Violett Beane#Names as per WP:COMMONNAME. Discuss, don't edit war Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Violett Beane, you may be blocked from editing. Still being discussed. And no source at all for that name anywhere. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb says the character in Legends of Tomorrow she played was called Jessie Wells. We go with the credits when we have them. If you keep trying to force your version against Wikipedia guidelines and editor consensus of how to apply them to an article you do run the risk of losing your ability to edit the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She’s playing the same character so what does it even matter

It matters because actors get official credits and that is what we want to put in actor articles as a record of how they were credited. Also it is not exactly the same character in that episode, it is a character created by the writers of that episode, based on her backstory, but still effectively a fork from other portrayals with character written as needed for the episode story to be told. They get to name her and we can assume that is the name she is going by at the time of that episode. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is literally the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Jesse Wells is Jesse Quick whether it’s part of the credit or not.

And yet that is the rules that Wikipedia operates under. We use the credited names for list of credits sections in people articles. Your insistence on trying to go against that is disruptive. 06:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Look, I’m really trying to meet you in the middle here. I just want the article to be as thoroughly detailed as possible for the sake of others. Jesse Wells is Jesse Quick whether credited as it or not. If you just let me have this I promise I will never edit the article again.

That goes against what the credits say and we have to match the credits. We really don't have any flexibility to do otherwise here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]