User talk:Mary.Perry.Panda

May 2024

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sven Bømwøllen, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2024 (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, as you did at Chris Redfield, you may be blocked from editing. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 00:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chris Redfield page needs editing. I added relible sources from Capcom and other websites. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2024 (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, as you did at Chris Redfield, you may be blocked from editing. λ NegativeMP1 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, disruptive editing did not happen. I added reliable sources and reduced another users editorial bias by representing viewpoints fairly. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Redfield. Please do not remove information from articles that is backed up by reliable sources, gaming magazine or otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 07:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Chris Redfield) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seddon ^talk 08:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mary.Perry.Panda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made useful contributions to a page (Chris Redfield), but other users reverted all my edits. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From your unblock request, it seems you think you are in the right. If I was to lift the block, I think it is likely you would continue to edit war. In your next unblock request, you should consider the possibility that you were wrong to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a closer read on edit warring, which states that edit warring is still prohibited even if you think you are right. You need to settle disputes through discussion on article talk pages, not through constant reverts and undoing of edits. Doubly so when we're talking about something as simple as a fictional character. It's not like this is some sort of touchy, sensitive issues like social/political/world issues. There is nothing so urgent that we need instant resolution on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I tried to discuss the matter with the other user, but he couldn't provide constructive counterarguments. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point you're just lacking competence. The most recent discussion on my talk page is me explaining why I reverted your edits, which are already repeated points from another talk page. You even joined the Discord claiming that I was "bullying" you and got proven wrong and left. Please pay more attention to the advice I've gave you and read our policies. λ NegativeMP1 15:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide an explanation for this. Again: Why does the other character pages (Claire Redfield, Jill Valentine, Leon Kennedy) mention fan reception, but this page doesn't?

I provided several reliable sources. Some of the sources have even been cited for other character articles.

This is the articles talk page and we should discuss the matter here. not on our user talk pages.

Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do the other character pages [...]. (fixed typo)

Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure to read this properly [1]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 17:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I provided several sources for Chris Redfield's reception section improvement. one of the highest ranked characters by several video game magazines and a fan survey. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Several", we don't use lowquality sources such as gamerant and screenrant, especially when it just a listicle like content. PC Gamer and Nintendo Life are exactly the same that came from survey, so you couldn't site both. If you still don't understand then there is something wrong with you being loved with the character. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 17:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerant and Screenrant are cited on Leon Kennedy's page as well (reception section). Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally no Gamerant or Screenrant listicle sources have been cited. Chris still received mostly negative reviews from critics, thou don't forget that the critics prefer to described him as "sexy" rather than being "one of the best video game character". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

disrespectful comments are not allowed. see: Wikipedia:Civility Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any further discussing should take place on the Chris Redfield talk page. not on my user talk page. Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I looked at the article and talk page history - almost all of your edits were done in like a span of 6-8 hours or something. That's not very long, certainly not long enough for you to just give up and keep reverting. The discussion process can take time - days, maybe weeks if its a big dispute. You can't just throw up your hands and say "Well I tried" after such a short period.

Furthermore, Wikipedia decisions are made based on the WP:CONSENSUS-building process. And if there isn't a consensus, then the change isn't made. So, you shouldn't have been continually making the edits if there were actively people opposing your edits and you didn't have a consensus supporting your viewpoint.

On Wikipedia, you have to adhere to the consensus-building process. If you're stuck in a stalemate, you can ask for further input from related WP:WIKIPROJECTs or start up an WP:RFC. In both scenarios, you need to be asking neutrally for input, you have to make sure you don't WP:CANVASS. Sergecross73 msg me 16:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I understand. Also: Civil discussions are important. I'm still waiting for a reply/ explanation on the Chris Redfield talk page from user λ NegativeMP1 Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One other tip. I skipped some of the Chris Redfield talk page discussions. You make a lot of accusations of "bias", "WP:OWN", and even "harassment". Looking at their comments, I don't see enough to warrant making any of those accusations. They all just seem to be seem to be good-faith editors who simply don't see eye-to-eye with you on how to convey content on this article.

There's a common mantra around Wikipedia "Comment on content, not editors". It may help you to try to follow that. I'd spend less time trying to accuse others of "foul play", and more time framing your argument in more persuasive manner. And continuing to learn and follow Wikipedia's various consensus-building and dispute resolution avenues. WP:VG/S is a good resource for how the community feels about various sources too.

Alright, I'll leave you be. Good luck out there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one user called me a "moron" in an edit summary (Chris Redfield page) Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and on my talk page, some said this to me: "If you still don't understand then there is something wrong with you being loved with the character." --> comment on contecnt, not editors Mary.Perry.Panda (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not seen that. I've reminded that editor to follow WP:NPA. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]