Jump to content

User talk:Spectritus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:Ragnarok861)

Please put your message (if you have one) in the current month section (Currently October 2022) and put a title as "sub-heading 2"! Thank you!

Spectritus (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020

[edit]

November

[edit]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, Ragnarok861, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Most Visited Roblox Games, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Jalen Folf (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Most Visited Roblox Games

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Draft:Most Visited Roblox Games, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December

[edit]

2021

[edit]

January

[edit]

February

[edit]

Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mario Kart.

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mario Kart, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please do not add these rumors again. No announcement has been made for a Mario Kart 9 yet. -- ferret (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced warning

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Ninjago episodes, 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. Fieryninja (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March

[edit]

April

[edit]

Information 1

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Godzilla (franchise), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not add unsourced content. Please read WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:OR for more. Armegon (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May

[edit]

June

[edit]

‎Most Visited Roblox Experiences moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Most Visited Roblox Experiences, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jupitus Smart 16:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

The article Most Visited Roblox Experiences has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Entirely unsourced; duplicated from List of Roblox games

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July

[edit]

August

[edit]

Draft:Christopher R. Baker

[edit]

Hello Ragnarok861. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, a page you have created is clearly a work in progress and not ready to be published so I have moved it to Draft:Christopher R. Baker where you will have time and space to work on it and to improve it before it goes back to article space. You can find it at Draft:Christopher R. Baker. Happy editing! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Malcolmxl5. Thank you. I should have done this myself, I just didn't think of it. Ragnarok861 (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Ragnarok861. You will be able to work on it in relative peace in draft space, more so than in article space. Happy editing! --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September

[edit]

October

[edit]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher R. Baker (September 18)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
S0091 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Ragnarok861! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November

[edit]

December

[edit]

2022

[edit]

January

[edit]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher R. Baker (January 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher R. Baker (January 29)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February

[edit]

March

[edit]

"Minor Edit"

[edit]

Information icon Hi Ragnarok861! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Deutsche Welle that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Renat 01:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April

[edit]

May

[edit]

June

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Tarl N.. Your recent edit(s) to the page LZ 129 Hindenburg appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. What's your source for 35 deaths? The reference cited states "35 persons on the airship, and one member of the ground crew". Tarl N. (discuss) 16:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N. 35 deaths because ut says 13 passengers and 22 crew members. 13 + 22 = 35 Ragnarok861 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read it more carefully. 13 + 22 + 1 = 36 deaths. Either way, please read WP:SYNTH - this is on the margins of what is acceptable, but close enough that it suggests you need a second look before undoing someone else's work. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarl N. Oh, sorry, my mistake. Ragnarok861 (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Doctor Who

[edit]

I just undid your change of Matt Smith's age. According to the source, he was 27 when his first episode appeared, but was 26 when cast in the role. 28 is unsupported by the sources. Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tcr25 Sorry, my mistake. Ragnarok861 (talk) 09:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July

[edit]

Concern regarding Draft:Christopher R. Baker

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Spectritus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Christopher R. Baker, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Edit Summary"

[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Loki (TV series) does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Without an edit summary in this case, there's no way for other editors to know what your intention was removing a valid wikilink. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Butlerblog Ok, I understand. Sorry for the mistake. Spectritus (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher R. Baker (July 7)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Missvain (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Missvain Hello, I just want to say that I put a download link for the magazine where you can find a detailed article about Christopher R. Baker! And Doctor Who Magazine is a reliable source! I don't know why it wouldn't be! Spectritus (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of Benedict Cumberbatch performances, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.

Any projects that have not yet begun filming do not get added to filmographies until filming starts; ie no "preproduction", "announced" or "in development" per WP:NFF. Thank you! LADY LOTUSTALK 20:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August

[edit]

September

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Colin Salmon, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate I understand and I am sorry, but Colin Salmon's birth date is on every version of his Wikipedia page except the English version. How come ? Spectritus (talk) 10:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October

[edit]

November

[edit]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December

[edit]

2023

[edit]

January

[edit]

Your draft article, Draft:Christopher R. Baker

[edit]

Hello, Spectritus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Christopher R. Baker".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Ok, I understand. Spectritus (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February

[edit]

March

[edit]

Too early Bukayo Saka and Harry Kane edits

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bukayo Saka, 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. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattythewhite Look at the score of England v Ukraine. Spectritus (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know the score. But we don't update stats until matches have finished. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattythewhite I'm sorry, I didn't know. Spectritus (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you still not using references when updating content? This is not acceptable, WP:VERIFY is especially important when editing about living people. TylerBurden (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerBurden I'm sorry, I thought you would see in the news that what I added is true. I'll try not to make the same mistake again. Spectritus (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy, it's not about reading the news, articles need inline citations. TylerBurden (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Spectritus (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April

[edit]

May

[edit]

June

[edit]

Benzema

[edit]

Please wait for an official announcement and not some news/rumour. And he can't join them until 1 July as he is a Madrid player until 30 June. Kante4 (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4 It is official https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jun/05/karim-benzema-signs-deal-saudi-arabia-al-ittihad-real-madrid-lionel-messi Spectritus (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The club has not announced anything yet. That is the official source we need. Kante4 (talk) 15:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kante4 You're right he will only join them when the transfer window opens. Sorry for my mistake. Spectritus (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Kante4 (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July

[edit]

August

[edit]

September

[edit]

October

[edit]

November

[edit]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Salmon

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add poorly sourced content to a biography of a living person, as you did at Colin Salmon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate It says he's born in 1962 literally everywhere even his Wikipedia page in other languages. Spectritus (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate And where's the evidence he was born in 1961 ? Spectritus (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate Can you please answer my question ? Spectritus (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you just read the article? For the record, you're now muted, and I will no longer receive pings from you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeated BLP violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate Can you just give a reason you blocked me ? There's nothing with my edit. And please reply! Spectritus (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing wrong with my edit.
Spectritus (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Spectritus (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

NinjaRobotPirate blocked me for no valid reason, they claim my edit on Colin Salmon's birth year to not be properly sourced which is true but the original birth year (1961, I changed it to 1961-1962) wasn't sourced either and when I asked them where's the evidence the original birth year is true, they simply ignored me and then muted me. I noticed that on many websites it says Colin Salmon was born on 6 December 1962 (even Wikipedia in other languages), while a few others say 6 December 1961. So please resolve this issue. As Colin Salmon's birth year is being debated I suggest to just write both on his Wikipedia page or none at all. I also suggest you relieve NinjaRobotPirate from his Administrative permissions before they treat someone else the same way they treated me Spectritus (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Attacking the blocking admin for correctly blocking you is a terrible idea. Taking a look at this edit of yours, I see you change the date of birth from "December 1961", which is cited in the article with this citation, to "6 December 1961 or 1962", which is not. You seem to think Wikipedia in other languages would be a reasonable citation here, which isn't true and shows you don't understand WP:RS. Please take this time to understand what you were doing incorrectly and how information should be properly sourced here. Yamla (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2023 (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.

@Yamla I'm sorry, I didn't see the cited source. I also apologise to user:NinjaRobotPirate for wrongfully accusing him of not doing his job correctly.

Please read through the links to policies and guidelines on your talk page. For example, you can't add user-generated content to biographies of living persons. You can't just make a best guess at when someone was born. You can't copy content from other versions of Wikipedia. You can't restore unsourced content once it's been removed. You can't do any of the things you've been doing recently. I'm in pain because of a recent injury, so I probably should be more helpful when it comes to explaining these things. But you've got a page full of links to the guidelines and policies! You can't just ignore them. You have to read them. If you don't read them and follow them, the result is escalating blocks. If you can summarize (in your own words) the links that I've just given you now, I'll unblock you. I'm not going to get any pings you send – I muted you because you send them too often – so it may take me a while to notice that you've responded. If any other admin is satisfied with your responses, though, they're free to unblock you. Just make another unblock request if I don't respond in a timely manner. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December

[edit]

ITN recognition for Michèle Rivasi

[edit]

On 6 December 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michèle Rivasi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PFHLai OK. Spectritus (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024

[edit]

January

[edit]

February

[edit]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michel Jazy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dax. 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) 17:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Robert Badinter

[edit]

On 13 February 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Robert Badinter, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba Okay. Spectritus (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pinged me, I thought I'd note that it has since been pulled due to some tagged text. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Robert_BadinterBagumba (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba Okay. Spectritus (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March

[edit]

Edit problem

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Please see WP:CRYSTAL Dorsetonian (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dorsetonian Hello, I understand, but there's something you didn't get. Episodes 1 and 2 premiere on May 11. It said by the BBC that there would be one episode every Saturday after that. I thought this was obvious, but apparently not. Spectritus (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing at the existing references (which you did not add to) to support that, or to support that the Christmas episode would be screened on Christmas Day. Even now with your hint of a BBC announcement, and having found this there is nothing to support the Christmas Day assertion and I would suggest that schedules change frequently enough to make extrapolating all of the episode dates "risky". If you had added this ref to the episode dates I would not personally have reverted you, and will not do if you do so now, though I suspect other editors still might - be aware than another editor thanked me for reverting you. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorsetonian It's obvious that the Christmas special will air on Christmas day. Otherwise it wouldn't be a Christmas special. Just use your intelligence. Spectritus (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Christmas Special could appear any time over the Christmas period. Only verifiable facts should appear in Wikipedia. That a Christmas Special has been announced is a verifiable fact; that a Christmas Special will be shown on Christmas Day is pure speculation. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dorsetonian Okay. Nevermind. Sorry. Spectritus (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April

[edit]

ITN recognition for Maryse Condé

[edit]

On 9 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maryse Condé, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 23:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May

[edit]

June

[edit]

July

[edit]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christopher Robin Baker (July 6)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by KylieTastic were: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic Okay. Thanks for the info. Spectritus (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario edits

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Your means of "warning" readers is wildly inappropriate and not how we report information. Whether the movie is to be designated as a "sequel" or not shouldn't be a point of contention. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThomasO1989 Apologies. I just wanted to make sure people didn't fall in the trap of believing it's a sequel when it's not confirmed. Spectritus (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, we should be reporting verifiable information, but putting a warning in giant text is not appropriate for telling people it might not be a sequel, let alone for an encyclopedic article. No one is going to die if news comes out it's not a sequel. We'll simply update the article to reflect that when the time comes. For the time being, it's easier to communicate the film as a "sequel" because that gets the point across better and specifying it as "a movie in the same universe as The Super Mario Bros. Movie" is pedantic IMO. ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ThomasO1989 Indeed. Spectritus (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Eric Cantona shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please read WP:SDAVOID, buddy. Thedarkknightli (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August

[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Karolina Protsenko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karolina Protsenko. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris talk! 04:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneYoris Hello. I wasn't aware that a page with the same name was previously deleted until I saw the notice on the page's talk page. I don't see the problem. It's just the translation of the French page with a few small adjustments. Is translation not allowed anymore? Spectritus (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris Why did you delete the page without citing a valid reason or responding to my messages ? Spectritus (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Without citing a valid reason". Why do you resort to personally attack those that warn you? The reason the page was deleted (by admin Deb) was because it was previously deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karolina Protsenko, and you would need to create the article via the WP:AfC process to overturn the deletion consensus that was reached at the discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris But it can't possibly be identical to the previous one ? Spectritus (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, apologies if I'm a bit rough. I'm just a bit cross about this decision and I'm trying to understand it. Spectritus (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was poorly sourced, and that's the reason why it was deleted. References would need to be improved in order to overturn the consensus reached at the aforementioned discussion. CycloneYoris talk! 22:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris It's a translation. So, if the English version is not allowed to exist, then why are the others ? Spectritus (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because AfD's only affect articles that are published in the English Wikipedia, and have no effect on articles that might exist in other languages or Wikis. CycloneYoris talk! 22:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris May I ask what's an "AfD" ? But if the article exists in other languages why do you think it should be deleted ? If it exists in other languages then it must be legitimate. Spectritus (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD = Articles for deletion. I'm referring to the deletion discussion I linked above. CycloneYoris talk! 22:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A transfer is not completed until the medical has been passed. There is currently a discussion on the talk page of the player if you disagree with this. However, to comply with WP:BLP, the information needs to be accurate and the player will not be a Liverpool player until the medical is passed. Fishygy (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fishygy I understand. But there's like a 99 % chance that he becomes a Liverpool player. Spectritus (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fishygy You're right. I'm sorry. Spectritus (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September

[edit]

August

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Federico Chiesa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Vasil3fonov (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vasil3fonov Okay, I understand. My sincere apologies. Spectritus (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just keep in mind that there is usually a good reason for a certain page to be protected, as is the case with Federico Chiesa. If you look at the page's revision history, you will see that in the last 48 hours, at least 50 such edits have been reverted. Thanks, Vasil3fonov (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vasil3fonov Okay. Spectritus (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September

[edit]

Cut it out

[edit]

Stop adding "infobox royalty" to articles on old people. The community has very low tolerance for world's-oldest-people fandom, and if you keep this up you're likely to get blocked. They're not royalty and they don't have "reigns". Paging The Blade of the Northern Lights to nip this in the bud. EEng 22:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng Apologies. I just thought they deserved to have the title of oldest living verified human and as the only to do that is using the royalty infobox I had to use it. Spectritus (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop; this is not the intended use of the template. The template documentation explicitly notes it is to be used "for anyone having royal connections", which is not the case with the biographies you're editing.-- Ponyobons mots 23:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo Sorry. Spectritus (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I came on strong, but an enormous amount of community time has been wasted over the years by people wanting to present longevity as some kind of spectator sport, and a lot of people still see red when thinking about it. There was even one (or many more) Arbitration Committee cases that were needed to get the mess under control -- see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. My advice is to stay strictly away from this topic area. EEng 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng Okay. Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Gallaccio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Bergerac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot Thanks. I shall fix that. Spectritus (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

Spectritus, you are edit waring at Maggie Smith. Please stop. You are at risk of a block. Graham Beards (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Maggie Smith shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You are at 4RR over the last 24 hours. As the 'sources' you added do not come close to showing the information you are trying to support, I have opened a thread for you to discuss the matter further. - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat You started this edit war. There's no consensus for exclusion of the years active field. Spectritus (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for inclusion either, particularly as you misrepresented sources in your last piece of edit warring. While RAP and I are in disagreement over the point, he is not edit warring and is trying to find an honest solution to the matter. Maybe you should follow that example. - SchroCat (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat Who gave you permission to exclude the field ? Spectritus (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the wrong question to ask. Nothing is every guaranteed inclusion in an article: things need a consensus. This field doesn't have one. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat You can't just remove a field because you want to. You need a consensus. You're not the King of Wikipedia you know. Spectritus (talk) 13:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just add a field because you want to. You need a consensus. You're not the King of Wikipedia you know. I'm going to step away from this, as it's not constructive. End of the day, you didn't provide a source to support information you wanted to add. That's all that anyone needs to know. - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat First of all, you didn't have the right to remove that field. First you discuss and then you take action. I only readded it because that's how it was before the discussion and because the discussion was closed by an admin which means it wasn't necessary! Spectritus (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~}}.  Graham Beards (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards Did you block ShroCat too ? He's as responsible as me. He's even more responsible since he started that nonsensical debate. Also, you must understand that there was never a consensus to exclude the years active field. He made that decision by himself. Please do something about this! Spectritus (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a message on their TalkPage reminding them of the value of discussing controversial issues. Please use your time away to cool off. Graham Beards (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards Okay. Apologies if I seemed aggressive. Could you put an end to this and return Maggie Smith's years active field to its rightful place and form (1952–2023) please ? ShroCat never had the right to exclude it. Spectritus (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry. I am not taking sides in a discussion I have not engaged with. Graham Beards (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards That's understandable. But as an admin isn't solving problems part of your job ? Spectritus (talk) 13:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things are rarely that straightforward. Graham Beards (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards Okay. I don't know if it was you. But, an admin closed the discussion. Doesn't that mean it wasn't necessary and therefore the removed field should be how it was before ? Spectritus (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham Beards Also, I just saw your discussion with ShroCat on his talk page and it seems you sided with him. Why ? He's the one in the wrong. Spectritus (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October

[edit]
[edit]
Hello, Spectritus. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DonQuixote (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Spectritus. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Spectritus. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Spectritus. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Short descriptions

[edit]

Hi, "former" or "retired" should not be used in short descriptions, see WP:SDAVOID -- FMSky (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky But, then why is it used in the short descriptions of most former footballers ? Also, may I ask why it shouldn't be used ? Spectritus (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a mistake then and should be removed. Why? Idk, I didnt make the rule :D --FMSky (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky Do you have evidence this rule exists ? Spectritus (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
click on WP:SDAVOID --FMSky (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky Okay. I understand. Sorry. Spectritus (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
np 👍 --FMSky (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tales of the TARDIS has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tales of the TARDIS. Thanks! Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OlifanofmrTennant Okay, thanks. Spectritus (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Alexander Devrient (October 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Bonadea were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
bonadea contributions talk 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonadea Okay. Understandable. So, big productions in a person's filmography doesn't affect their notability? Spectritus (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Geraldo Perez

[edit]
Hello, Spectritus. You have new messages at Talk:Lupita Nyong'o.
Message added 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This has been contentious for a while. Please contribute to the discussion if you don't like the compromise. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paul Stephenson (civil rights campaigner), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doctor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot Thanks. I immediately corrected it. Spectritus (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]