User talk:Duroq145

February 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2019 in American television, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is The Futon Critic not reliable?--Duroq145 (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's not reliable. The source you used made zero mention of the show ending. All sources must support the content being cited. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then don’t accuse me of things I didn’t do by putting incorrect messages on my page--Duroq145 (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on 2019 in American television. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 18:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t comment on my page anymore or take any action against me if you’re going to straight up put lies on it--Duroq145 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing disambig pages

I saw your edit summary about inadvertently linking a disambig page [1]. There's a neat UI option that can help with this. If you go into your preferences, then look in the "gadgets" tab, there's an option "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange", which does exactly that. It's saved me from inadvertently linking dab pages any number of times. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I’ve started a discussion on Talk:Love, Victor page about moving the TV series to its main page if you’re interested--Duroq145 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mainstream media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A&E (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:11, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened

What happened was that my finger slipped on the revert button and, even though I clicked cancel, it still reverted. I fixed my error. Crboyer (talk) 16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existent categories

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Chima Simone, please make sure that the category page actually exists. In some cases, it may be appropriate to create a new category in accordance with Wikipedia's categorization guidelines, but it is usually better to use the most specific available existing category. It is never appropriate to leave a page categorised in a non-existent category, i.e. one whose link displays in red. You may find it helpful to use the gadget HotCat, which tests whether a category exists before saving a change. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I fixed the categories…--Duroq145 (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to be fixed. Just because you place a template doesn’t mean a problem exists.--Duroq145 (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course disagree for reasons given. Proper action is leave the tag and discuss it or fix the problem. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper action is you needed consensus to place it in the first place and you defied it. Do not come to my talk page to gaslight me--Duroq145 (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I identified a valid issue, described it in the tag, the edit summary and on the talk page, and did not remove the content from the article the reference supported. You need to either fix the problem identified or gain consensus on the talk page that it isn't a problem before removing the tag. Geraldo Perez (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 noticeboards.
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, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 08:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was I disrupting exactly?--Duroq145 (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry?

What’s going on here? Being accused of being someone I’m not on a first offense and I get suspended indefinitely? How is that fair? Why would you randomly accuse me of being another user without proof?--Duroq145 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: I am not a sockpuppet. Your reversion of my edit on Bunk'd is considered WP:Gravedancing--Duroq145 (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BANREVERT: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the ban. When Geraldo disagreed with something, his version of the disputed content stayed in place. Therefore the same principle applies. Or does it only matter for more experienced users?--Duroq145 (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access is now revoked. No more discussion by other users is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]