User talk:Hunter1471

Draft:Amelia Monét concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Amelia Monét, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail reference at 67 (rap group)

Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at 67 (rap group). See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And at Krept and Konan. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm completely new to this! I've just read through the list of deprecated sources and realised it isn't meant to be used. Thanks, I'll be more vigilant from now on. Hunter1471 (talk) 11:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Happy editing, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits on Jever

Why did you revert them? I spent all evening expanding that article! Kuupanyu (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was on the bad faith edits section of the recent changes page, which had flagged yours. I'd seen it and realised that it wasn't vandalism, but forgot to close the tab. When I went onto the next article and saw that it was vandalised,I'd accidentally CTRL+Tabbed to your edit and reverted it. I tried to undo my edit and explain myself in the reason for the undo, but you'd ended up getting there before me. Apologies once again Hun ter 19:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Apology accepted. Kuupanyu (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Vandals

Thanks so much for all your work in reverting vandalism - you're doing a great job. Might I make one suggestion? Make sure to warn the vandal after you revert their edit. The main purpose of this is to document the vandalism so that a repeat offender can be blocked by administrators. Warning vandals is very easy with Twinkle (which you appear to be using). When you revert the vandalism with Twinkle, it should open up the vandal's talk page. Then, choose "Warn" from the TW menu, and select a warning and a warning level. (You can read about how to choose a warning level at WP:WARNVAND.) If there have been previous warnings, you should choose a higher warning level. If a vandal continues to vandalize after a final warning, then the vandal can be reported to WP:AIV and ultimately blocked. (Except in extraordinary circumstances, a vandal should not be reported without being warned.) Again, thanks for all your work, and let me know if you have any questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot for the feedback - I'm a bit new around here as you can probably see so I didn't know that I could warn others. Is the vandal's talk page meant to automatically open after reverting the vandalism? Whenever the page loads after the revert is a success, the page automatically loads to the now-fixed article page. Maybe it's due to me having it set as a gadget instead of a browser extension? Regardless, I'll start using the warn feature now. Thanks a lot for the offer - if I ever need some help I'll be sure to ask! Hun ter 22:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so receptive to feedback. Go to your Twinkle settings (at WP:TWPREF) and look under "Revert and rollback." Check the three boxes under "Open user talk page after these types of reversions." Once you revert the vandalism, it will refresh the article page and open the user talk page in a new tab. If you want, you can also check the "Automatically open the Twinkle warn menu on a user talk page after Twinkle rollback" box, and it will automatically open the warn menu as well. Happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out what was causing it - my Firefox is set up to automatically block pop-ups. I've read through the vandalism page and think I've got a hang of it. Cheers again for the advice. Hun ter 23:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, I'm Fuzheado. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Hasan Piker—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 22:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I undid the vandalised page. I think you've accidentally reverted the fix! Hun ter 22:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did with this edit to Tyson Goldsack. Thank you. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think you've made the same mistake as the user above. You've linked a revision where I was the one removing the poorly referenced spam. Hun ter 00:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:203.198.71.200 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. ―sportzpikachu _{my talkcontribs} 01:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, apologies, clicked on the wrong section of Twinkle at the top. Hun ter 01:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Renu Devi

Renu Devi's page had a box when she was ex-MLA. Now she is MLA again. So I removed the box. I do not understand what you mean by 'constructive' change. If you want to keep outdated information, nothing I can do about it. I have limited time for editing wiki poages.

Hi there! I apologise if you took it the wrong way, but you hadn't cited any sources in the edit that I reverted. In particular, I am talking about where you changed 'former' Vice-President into 'National' Vice-President. As this changes the meaning of the article, and the fact that you hadn't added any other information, made it appear to be vandalism. In addition to this, you had removed an entire infobox from the page. This included many fields, such as "Name","Office", "Term Start", "Term end" etc. I would have otherwise left the article for others to check, as it could have been breaking news so no new citations could have been added at that time. However, the complete removal of an infobox (instead of just removing certain fields) made it appear to be vandalism. This was also backed up by Wikipedia's detector, which had determined it to be a "very likely bad faith" edit. I am very sorry to find out that this wasn't the case - I try to do everything in good faith - and apologise once again. I have added the link in the next comment for you to see exactly what you had changed for the edit I reverted and hopefully see my point of view. In the future, please consider adding citations to the information that you add (if it changes the meaning of the article) and please make sure you don't delete the entire infobox - just the fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renu_Devi&diff=prev&oldid=988925916

Thank you very much. Hun ter 11:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antebellum

I’m confused as to why clear grammatical mistakes I tried to correct were reverted. For example, I deleted an added “a” and changed “condescendingly” to “condescending”. I also corrected the phrase: “meet go with” which is clearly an error. I understand you might question items such as the capitalization of “the General,” but his character’s name was he was anonymous was “Him,” not “the General”. I also eliminated an extra space before a comma. At the very least, that was a typographical errors. These may have been reverted because I realized I hadn’t logged in but used the “minor” button. However, my hope is that you take a look at my suggestions, as it is obvious these were clear grammatical and typographical errors. I submit this respectfully. Thank you for reading. 2601:84:300:56D0:28FA:272D:9F03:8458 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I realized my phone autocorrected some of my message above. Please allow me to clarify one item further, below. Again, I send these corrections respectfully. I’m not a regular editor on Wikipedia and do not mean to offend. I am sure that the examples I listed, such as an extra “a,” a space before a comma, the added “ly” to one of the words, and the two verbs next to each other were definitely mistakes. I’m not sure if the fact that I wasn’t logged in is the reason you reverted those changes or not. I do hope these are given a fresh look later on.

There was also an autocorrect typo where I meant to say that the character referred to as “the General” actually had a name during the time his identity was unknown to the audience. That name was “Him” - not “the General”. I may be wrong, but my thought was even if the original author meant to refer to him as that, it was not his official character name or title, therefore “the general” should not need to be capitalized throughout. 2601:84:300:56D0:D86C:8BF1:EB2F:1B2C (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just re-read the article.

I also tried to correct “tell” to “tells” and see that was reverted. I’m unsure as this usage is definitely incorrect in the sentence.

The other example I meant to give was the appearance of “meets agrees” - two verbs next to each other. I am 100% sure that this is incorrect as well. Could you please check with another editor if you disagree? 2601:84:300:56D0:D86C:8BF1:EB2F:1B2C (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you prefer to use “the General” then it should be used consistently. Toward the end of the plot summary, it is not capitalized in at least one or more instances.

There is also an extra space in one of the sentences I mentioned above.

Lastly, many of the sentences could be considered run-on. In these sentences the use of various commas are questionable. These sentences would be better understood and flow better if the editing was tightened. Starting a new sentence is always preferred to a run-on sentence.

I hope these comments help tighten and improve this article. Thank you again. 2601:84:300:56D0:D86C:8BF1:EB2F:1B2C (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just checked the article and big apologies! I just wanted to revert the 'General/general' capitalisation, but accidentally selected the option which reverted all of your edits instead of just the capitalisation one. Turns out I was wrong about the capitalisation as well- just looked it up on Google and seems like you're right. I've reverted my rollback so it's in the position you left it in. Apologies once again. Hun ter 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New College

Hi there, 'College Links' section on the New College page removed as the information contained within is outdated and irrelevant. Please restore the removal.

Hi User:86.24.200.204, I reverted the edit as there was no information given at all as to why you had removed an entire section of the page. All that could be seen was that an unregistered member had removed a significantly large section of the article without any explanation. Unfortunately, Wikipedia suffers from unregistered vandals who perform 'section blanking', where they remove an entire section of content in order to remove other people's work. I had reverted it under the impression that this was one of those attacks. I apologise for reverting your edit, however I will not undo my revert immediately. Please see WP:Removal, where it states:

When removing a section of an article, it is necessary that it at least be explained, and in some cases, discussed. Unexplained removal of content is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted.

As you can see, I was just following the rules. Additionally, I had been thanked for reverting the section deletion suggesting that your point of view is open to being challenged. In this case:

If an edit war occurs between just two users over content, it shall be discussed in hopes of a settlement from among the community.

Therefore, if you want to continue with the deletion, I would suggest putting it in the Talk page of the article, where you can discuss your point of view and see if it is open to challenge, where the community that works on the article can discuss whether to remove the section or not.

Please note that this is meant in the politest way possible. I am not trying to attack you or say that your decision was wrong. I am just explaining my decision and advising you as to how you can make sure that the community agrees with you. If you want me to create the section on the talk page, please reply and I will do so. If you need any other help, please feel free to ask.

Kind regards, Hun ter 16:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Sneetches and Other Stories, you may be blocked from editing. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, think you've made the same mistake as numerous others. I'm stopping the vandalism as someone removed an entire section from the article. Although it appears to be nonsense, it describes a Dr. Seuss story, so it was a legitimate edit. Hun ter 18:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, evidently I was looking at the wrong side of my Huggle screen! Redacting my warning. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you yet included the latest film Ludo by Anurag Basu ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:1003:D09A:68BF:FFFF:458E:BE91 (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@2405:201:1003:D09A:68BF:FFFF:458E:BE91: Hi. On the article, you had added the sentence: "In the year 2020 he directed the movie ludo which is critically acclaimed and running successfully." As I said on your talk page, you did not provide any sources for your statement, which is why I reverted it. Hun ter 12:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2a02:c7f:14dd:d500:c017:7b89:aeef:896a/64

2A02:C7F:143B:E300:0:0:0:0/64 is continuing to block evade with this range. I think we need to block this range

@184.56.62.31: Hi, could you perhaps link their page? I could then submit it to the admins to delete if it has enough warnings on it. Regards,

Hun ter 17:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Griqua people

I cannot believe that you have actually looked at the version of the article that you are reverting to. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC) I am not vandalizing. I am reverting recent edits by Aneesa697 that were done in a particularly sloppy manner by adding text above the lead. If you want to blitz-revert, please focus on other articles. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@73.71.251.64: Hi, I just suggested that instead of deleting all of the content, it could be moved to another section instead. Wiping 2/3 paragraphs of text (most likely added in good faith) would honestly be a disservice to the contributor, as they have presumably taken time out of their day to contribute. It seems like an honest mistake, so I would argue that completely removing all of that information is a disproportionate reaction to poor placement. It's all correctly cited etc. and the contributing user may not even check the edit log to add it back in later. Regards, Hun ter 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw an edit conflict happen. Re your second comment, I apologise for flagging it as section blanking, as it seems that you are also well intentioned. I would just argue that sloppy placement shouldn't be cause to completely remove otherwise perfectly fine content. Looking at their page, it appears to be that they're a new user, so instead using their content but changing the placement would be a much better alternative. Hun ter 01:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way that Aneesa697 added the material shows wanton indifference to the most obvious features of article style and I would consider it their responsibility to do it again better. My priority is to restore a proper article lead so that people who look up that article to read it, like I did, will see a readable article. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@73.71.251.64: Assuming that Aneesa697 was showing wanton indifference and deleting it for a lack of caring on their part, even though they wrote 3 paragraphs of cited content, goes against WP:GF. Believe it or not, not everyone (especially if they're younger) has awareness of such things. It would be best to assume that they did add the content in good faith, and perhaps discuss it with them as to why the placement is bad. They might not be watching the page and the deletion of the content, without alerting them on their talk page as to why, would most likely be a blow to them when they find out that the content they spent time to write and cite was deleted over an issue that they could have fixed if alerted to it. Wikipedia should be a place for new editors to feel welcomed, as the project thrives on the knowledge added by everyone as a collective. In my opinion, deletion without a direct notice to the user doesn't promote such an environment. Please note that I mean this completely respectfully, and I'm not trying to put you down or trying to cause an argument. I'm just putting myself in their shoes and thinking about how I would feel if this happened to me as a new user. Regards, Hun ter 02:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]