User talk:GUtt01/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great American Railroad Journeys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cranberries. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baldur's Gate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imeon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:BBC Top Gear (2002) Presenters, 2002 - 2015.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BBC Top Gear (2002) Presenters, 2002 - 2015.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytoyoda (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Death on the Nile

Greetings! Thanks for the note. I don't feel strongly about this article; as a sometime member of WP:FILM I was under the impression that the article on the printed source material should deal only with the source, not with any adaptations. For some time, the adaptations were split off into their own articles, and I was trying to contribute to that process. However, I won't make any more edits to that article and you may follow up as you see fit. Her Pegship (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pegship: It is quite alright. While the film of the novel, released in 1978, is alright, since it contains the right information about production and such, I could not understand why there was an article for the more recent adaptation in... 2004, was it? Anyway, I couldn't understand it, especially as other adaptations for the same TV serial, had not been documented in their own article as such. Anyway, I just believe that that adaptation is adequately covered by the article on the original novel. GUtt01 (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

You're right; the IP's edits, though seemingly disruptive, hadn't quite risen to the level of an edit war. By all rights, I should have templated you instead, as you exceeded 3RR today ([1], [2], [3], [4]). I'll back off for the moment, but you both need to discuss your edits on the article's Talk page and come to some consensus or seek dispute resolution rather than repeatedly revert each other. General Ization ^Talk 23:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@General Ization: We have, via a third party. ~Oshwah~ took care of this for us; I knew the user from a previous matter, and considered them a likely individual to help out. GUtt01 (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop

The IP is free to remove warnings from their talk page -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@There'sNoTime: Users may remove warnings, but not on matters concerning Edit Warring until a suitable period of time has passed. The user should not be reverting these until the matter has been dealt with.GUtt01 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

No, per WP:REMOVED they can remove most warnings. If you revert the IP again, I will block you for edit warring. Please stop -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 19:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Same with this edit. Users are free to remove nearly anything from their talk pages, including block notices.

As for this and this, it's best to simply copy/paste their unblock request out of the template, then restore the block notice to standard. As it is, you have removed their unblock request altogether, so it cannot be reviewed. This edit should not have been made at all. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... I should have just done them a favor and, instead of telling them they needed to do the correct thing, just copied their unblock request below the notice for them. Many apologies for that. Although I don't know if Wikipedia should allow the policy for removing warnings in regards to Block Notices; I don't think it sends the right message to be honest, because I think it just makes Users chose to ignore the fact of why they got it. I mean, yeah, they can remove it when the Block expires, but why allow them to do so when it is still active? GUtt01 (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Just a friendly reminder not to feed the trolls like on Oshwah's user talk. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Re: Doorzki, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Hi,

hate to bother you but I'd like to get some clarification. When I added the information on Doorzki's edit warring on Mark Levin, I believed I was following correct procedure. Your comment to User:Volunteer Marek that "While it is perfectly fine to report this user for Edit Warring on this article, it should be noted that it is not best to start a new report on someone, when they are currently reported by another" seems to confirm this.

Given that Doorzki kept trying to delete the evidence from the earlier report by User:LionMans Account and kept claiming that it was inappropriate to add the report information and that people should instead file a second report, I can see why Volunteer Marek eventually filed the second report. I don't think they should be admonished for doing so, but it would be helpful if there could be a clear statement on what the correct procedure is?

Thanks Morty C-137 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137:Thank you for your message. I would state quite clearly, that the user did not do anything wrong in a sense, because he was right to report them for edit warring on another article, but they should have at least added their findings to the report against Doorzki that had already been submitted. In any case, I've amended the Ping I sent to him, with corrections in what I stated. GUtt01 (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

What I was trying to point out was that ordinarily that would have been the case - when I noticed the Mark Levin edit war I added my findings to the report by LionMans Account.

But then Doorzki kept REMOVING the new evidence (see diffs: [5] [6] [7]) and claiming it was "unfairly expanded" or "hijacked" with edit summaries like [8] "You're not allowed to hijack another user's complaint. Make your own and please stop!"?

So I guess I'd just like some clarification to be sure... neither I (by adding evidence to the existing report) nor Volunteer Marek (filing the 2nd report in the face of Doorzki's repeated attempts to remove evidence) actually did anything wrong? Morty C-137 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Well in that instance, I would have not actually started a new report, but instead have reported the disruptive trouble to an admin and stated clearly that a user that has been reported for Edit Warring and has yet to have their case reviewed, is attempting to prevent evidence of their actions being seen, and that they don't wish to dispute it at all and/or give reasonable arguments to what is being given. Neither you or the other user did wrong, but in fairness it would have been wiser to gone straight to an admin and reported what they were doing. It would have put a stop to the disruptive manner that Doorzki did, and sped up the review of their behaviour and the best course of action to take against them, since an admin could check the noticeboard's history log to see what was going on. Had an admin been notified as soon as the disruptions on the noticeboard began, it might have reduced the severity of the situation, or possibly averted it. GUtt01 (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Lego Batman Edit

HI, I appreciate you helping smooth out my some of my editing mistakes. As for you talking about my removal, what I removed was, by my count 9 sentences in a row that all essentially followed the format "On {date} {X actor) was announced to be playing (X character) This is very repetitive and difficult to read. I slimmed it down, and perhaps it was a little extreme, but I asked myself "What are these sentences really achieving" and the answer, to me, was "very little". I actually think when you have this much Proseline it actually hurts the encyclapedia, because it makes readers stop reading an article once they hit like the third sentence in a row that follows this format, and it makes it look like not enough care has been put into it. Reading your revision it's better but still not what I'd consider great.

I think a compromise we could come to would be to list the five principal cast members (IE: Batman, Robin, Pennywise, Batgirl, Joker) and the month there casting was announced while listing the range of dates for the other characters. (IE: Other casting announcements were made between July 2015 and Februray 2017.) Whaddaya say?--Deathawk (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Notifications

Hi GUtt01 - pings, or notifications, only work if you add the (correct) notification and your signature in the same edit, so your editing the ping to Snooganssnoogans at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - here will not have notified that user.
For more information please see Wikipedia:Notifications, although this is not very clearly worded, the explanation is in "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent." - Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for some advice

Hi, wondering if I could trouble you for a little more advice?

I noticed this edit [9] while looking back on some things, trying to figure out the connection between James J. Lambden and Hidden Tempo (two users that seem to edit/war in sync and who appeared to be following a couple users like Volunteer Marek around). The user is currently indefinitely blocked by Mastcell for repeated bad behavior after a long topic ban and at least one prior (caught) instance of sockpuppeting.

Would you have any advice on the proper path to report what appears to be evidence of off-wikipedia collusion to edit war, beyond requesting that an admin like yourself look into it? Morty C-137 (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Firstly, thanks for this message, but to be quite honest I'm a humble Wikipedian, who was giving his opinion; I don't have administrator permissions. Therefore, I'm not really the best person to talk to about something like this. But I know a few people who could help. Try having a word with these people, and see what they can do to help you:

Swarm ; NinjaRobotPirate ; Oshwah

Hopefully, that should help you out. I'm sure that they can give you advice on this matter. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Swarm, User:NinjaRobotPirate, User:Oshwah, also what's the policy concerning them apparently trying to filter to an "only positive responses allowed" on the discussion [10]? Morty C-137 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: I don't know, to be honest. You'll have to ask them. GUtt01 (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully they'll see this and respond. Pinging them here, hope you don't mind. @Swarm:@NinjaRobotPirate:@Oshwah:Morty C-137 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: I wouldn't have this discussion on a user talk page, use the proper channels: If you need admin help to look into this try out ANI. If you are looking into a sockpuppeting investigation you need to go to SPI with your evidence. Finally, if a user removes your comments from their own talk page do not reinstate it. Garchy (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Garchy: You realize the entire point of my asking here is to try to figure out the "proper channels"? Morty C-137 (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Morty C-137: Listen, I'm going to ask that you please stop posting Pings and responses on my talk page now. I gave you an answer; however, I did not expect you to turn this message into a discussion on your problem. In future, make certain you talk to an admin about a problem an administrator can deal with, and, as Garchy said, try not to have discussions on a user's talk page. GUtt01 (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, what Garchy said is right. Personally, I think the best thing to do is to avoid debating blocked users. It doesn't usually accomplishes anything useful. With regards to investigating off-wiki collusion, there's no easy way to investigate it. Off-wiki evidence is often ignored by admins, and there's no way for admins to track who has emailed whom. The best you could really do is show a behavioral connection at WP:SPI or WP:ANI. The help desk or village pump would probably be a better place to have this conversation. Otherwise, we're going to annoy GUtt01. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding Scooby-Doo (film) revert

Hi, regarding this revert, I'm a bit confused as to why you felt this version was better. My edit seems a bit more neutral and lets the reviews speak for themselves without saying they are generally positive or negative (I didn't write this content though btw, I just reverted to it in a previous edit). I've also seen the movie several times (though it has been a while, so I could be wrong) and I don't remember them ever categorizing the monster that Scrappy turned into as a "bulldog." Not saying you were wrong to revert any of this though, but a bit more explanation would be nice as it wasn't intended as a POV edit and the previous version seems far better and more neutral to me. Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick follow up to my previous comment, I partially reverted this edit as two other editors who agree that directly saying the reviews are positive or negative is not letting the reviews speak for themselves. However, looking closer at the edit, I do agree with the other changes you made regarding the wording and left those intact. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'm happy to discuss this further here or on the article's talk page if you'd like! Cheers, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 01:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Lego Batman Movie edits

Tell the other user to watch the movie Passenger 57 or to keep their opinions to themselves.

@Mdf3530: Your edits were reverted because you first didn't provide a citation, and then provided one to IMDb which was inappropriate, as per WP:CITINGIMDB. GUtt01 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I cited another source besides IMDb. This one cannot be user edited.

List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee‎

Thanks for your work on List of tallest buildings in Milwaukee‎. The blocked user has simply opened a new account and is reverting again. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@32.218.40.48: If that is the case, I suggest submitting a sockpuppet investigation form. GUtt01 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

No one there pays attention to IPs. 32.218.40.48 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

What is the point in adding unnecessary comments after a user has been blocked? You also have added multiple comments when unnecessary, making suggestions to admins that they neither need nor want. Is there a reason for this? Has someone asked you to unofficially clerk the page? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nihlus Kryik: Listen, I already admitted to another I stuck my nose in when I shouldn't have, and wasn't gonna touch the page. This time, I had at least a decent reason. I wanted to clarify the IP's reasoning for the request; they had made good reason, but they didn't exactly clarify why. The user was attempting to make, if only by a small portion, a change of information that was not back up by a reliable source. I only did so, when I read the report, and thought I take a look at the article in question, where I found a second page that was receiving the same change that was incorrect. I was making the comment, just before the block was literally made, and posted after it had. GUtt01 (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You just told User:Floquenbeam the other day that you won't touch it and yet here you are. It wasn't "I won't touch it unless I have a decent reason" it was "I won't touch it." I also notice that in addition to making the comment there, you've also gone to the articles involved in a few ANEW cases and inserted yourself into the dispute by reverting users. That definitely does not help defuse matters. Take ANEW off your watchlist. Only go there if you need to report someone for a 3RR violation or you are accused of a 3RR violation. This is at least the third thread someone has made on your page about your unnecessary actions at ANEW. I'm not sure what it's going to take to get you to stop. only (talk) 11:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Only: It's not watchlist I need it off; that could be done easily. Is there a way to remove it from one's own User Contributions? GUtt01 (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you asking if there's a way to prevent you from editing that page? There is no technical way to do that via Wikipedia. You have to just not go there based on your own will. only (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you can't remove it from your contributions, as that is a log of what actually happened, and you did edit that page. However, there actually is a way to technically prevent you from editing the ANEW noticeboard. It would have to be something you wanted to do; it's use would be primarily as a reminder not to edit there, and preventing you from editing there without thinking first. It is easily defeated, so it would not be a way to completely prevent you from editing there, just an aid in helping you not edit there. If you're interested, I can add some lines to your javascript common.js page. Would you like me to do that? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Well, if it will help, so be it. GUtt01 (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I've added it here. I want to be clear this is voluntary, as an aid to remembering that you'd agreed not to post at ANEW. You are allowed to remove it. When you read ANEW now, it should say "view source" instead of "edit source", and there won't be a way to edit it. Let me know if it doesn't work right. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you and the other editors and to Wiki on this Dartmouth page ....

Warrenwesson (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)I looked at the tutorial on how to use "TALK" .. after I had been banned for edit warring. Probably should have looked at it first before even starting to edit.

In fact Dartmouth has ALWAYS been known as a bedroom community of Halifax, and I was trying to get to the neighborhoods as being the communities given that having lived in most of the urban neighborhoods and some rural , Dartmouth North and Portland Estates and Forest Hills don't generally feel a sense of community between them. . . but feel community within themselves.

I could not figure out how to explain what I was trying to do. Not a big deal. Warrenwesson (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Your recent editing history at DuckTales 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. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@FilmandTVFan28: I sent a message to someone with a request for them to check the editor's changes on that article. I won't revert them again if they decide to revert the reversion of mine, but I will ask them to consider what they are adding in and why they feel it should be included to determine if that is correct, and if they should check with other editors to see if their information is notable enough to be included and to determine if its not adding in excess details. GUtt01 (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Good. I just can't stand arguments. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked users

Here, you say there was nothing wrong with the edit. That's incorrect. The edit was made by a block-evading sockpuppet from one of our more abusive sockpuppeteers. You are welcome to reintroduce the edit, but by doing so, you take full responsibility for the edit itself. --Yamla (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know anything about that! O..O That's a shock, I can honestly say... Okay, thanks for the heads-up. GUtt01 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Lego Batman movie

I deleted the unnecessary cast listings in the production section, per the new MOS wording that was decided on a little over a month ago which specifically states that we should now "only including the casting date (month and year is normally sufficient) where it is notably relevant to the overall production history.". Given that there were so many names and dates I felt that it was no longer in line with the current guidelines. --Deathawk (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Britain's Got Talent

Hi. If you don't mind me asking, why have you removed the verifiable and relevant voting percentages? It shows how close an act was to another, and in many cases an act that was actually in second place failed to go through. Emirates123 (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Emirates123: I understand that the citations clear up how the voting went down for a semi-final and the final itself, but it feels a bit excessive to add in the actual voting percentages when it's just easier to denote the effective position an act came in. I believe the citation is more useful just to help confirm the position an act received, but if you feel that the percentages are important, do make a discussion about this on the main article for the show. Although... would you mind just being a little clear on this bit please - "an act that was actually in second place failed to go through" - as its very confusing to understand what you mean by this? GUtt01 (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In some cases, the voting percentages show that an act that lost the judges vote was actually second as far as the public vote is concerned. As the voting percentages were released, and are usually useful for articles like this - they are included for X Factor/The Voice UK/I'm a Celebrity as they should be. I'll make a discussion over there. Emirates123 (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)