User talk:Legomonkeyman997

Hi, I can appreciate that, but there isn’t any reason why someone would need to know the characters name to know that the actor received praise for the role. It’s not relevant, and in this case does a massive disservice to anyone who stumbles across the page.

Jamie Campbell Bower

Hi, Legomonkeyman997, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm Perfect4th. I saw your edits to Jamie Campbell Bower and just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia has a policy that states that Wikipedia articles may contain spoilers – even large ones – and do not require a spoiler warning. I understand where you're coming from – just wanted to let you know of the policy behind why your edits are being reverted. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! You can drop by my talk page or ask at the Teahouse, or here on your talk page and I'll see it as well. Best, Perfect4th (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jamie Campbell Bower. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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. – ².O.^Boxing 10:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is blowing what I’m doing far out of proportion to call it an edit war. I made one edit as a guest, and then two different edits as a registered user, finally receiving a response on the third time, and I have yet to make a change after receiving that response, as I thought we were in a discourse as to why the change should, or should not, remain in the page. I have yet to have an explanation as to why my edit is less valid than the initial one. While yes, I understand now that spoilers are allowed without any warning or note, I do feel that there is nothing to be gained from the specificity in the page. IMDB actually lists his character as “The Friendly Orderly”, possibly to avoid spoilers, but also because that is the correct name for him as that is the character name for the first few episodes we encounter him. Labeling his character “Vecna/Henry Creel/One” holds no value over “The Friendly Orderly” to someone not familiar with the show, and does a disservice to anyone who is a fan of the show and happens upon the page before they are caught up on season 4. Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to briefly explain what happened: Edit warring on Wikipedia refers to making the same change or revert multiple times. I think other editors put rationales for the reverts in the revision history of the page. The warning you received here was responding to the same edit I was – I saw the change in the pending changes queue and mentioned the policy on your talk page without reviewing the edit, and the other editor later reverted the edit and left the warning, probably based solely on the edit history without having seen my talk page note here. Because many editors on Wikipedia are familiar with page histories and explaining via edit summaries, at times it can be easy to miss an explanation or response that isn't put on a talk page (incidentally why I do my best to leave at least a brief message like this every time I make a revert, but not every editor does the same).

As for the content change itself, I am not well informed enough on the subject to have a strong opinion on how it should be phrased. From a cursory glance, "The Friendly Orderly" sounds to me like a placeholder name, but I could just not have enough information. I see that you've brought it up on Talk:Jamie Campbell Bower; that is the best place to get input/consensus from other interested/informed editors. I'd suggest putting it in its own section, though, so it's clear that you want to pursue it further beyond the declined edit request; you can do so by putting a section title surrounded by double equal signs before your message, like this:

== Section title ==

Content of section

Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any further questions! Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! Legomonkeyman997 (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022 Response

N/a