User talk:Rey Keshe

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rey Keshe! Thank you for your contributions. I am MisterShiney and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Rey Keshe, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! Sarah (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Game of Thrones (season 3), you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. This applies particularly to adding information that its source describes as a "Twitter rumor". Sandstein 10:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

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 to Game of Thrones (season 3). Thank you. Sandstein 21:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time season 2

Hello, your recent edits over at Once Upon a Time (season 2) is considered edit warring and may result in blocking or even being banned from editing Wikipedia. Please feel free to start up a dialogue on the article's talk page to discuss your opinions. Cheers, LiamNolan24 (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones (season 3)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Game of Thrones (season 3), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 12:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I also notice you are moving a lot of characters around in the List of Game of Thrones characters page. These changes appear to be non-constructive as you are implying that certain characters are main characters when they are not. A full list of main characters can be seeon on the official website and the changes you made, in particular adding Gendry to the list of main characters in incorrect. But don't worry. I have restored him to his rightful place in Westeros. Have a nice day. MisterShiney ✉ 14:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of Game of Thrones characters. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that editing from an IP address, in particular IP's 212.5.150.184 and 83.228.52.64 as considered very bad faith and is in fact Sock puppetry and can result in a long term block. MisterShiney ✉ 22:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used only one IP adress not two, don't blame me for every edit, im done with this so called "War". Rey Keshe

Fair enough. Well done for fessing up. Not many people do that around here. Hat off to you. Don't look at it like a war because you get into the "them and me" mindset. It was just a misunderstanding. I don't know how long you have been editing for, but you may want to pop over and take a look at the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and refresh yourself on them and remember WP:BRD - it's probably the Golden Policy around here. MisterShiney ✉ 23:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to fix the table you know :) Rey Keshe

Im working on it. Its frustrating the heck out of me!! lol MisterShiney ✉ 23:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the others its not too complex, im sure you'll succseed. :) Rey Keshe And Gendry appeard in all 3 season not just season 3.

Outta boy :)

hahahahahaha thanks. Worked it out in the end. Yeah I realised that as soon as I saw what the mistake and difference was. I also moved Talia like you suggested. MisterShiney ✉ 23:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smart lad :) I'm sure you did everything you can to stop these unregistered editions and I sincerely hope that you won't have any problems with registred one's too :)

Uncivil

Hello, I'm Amberrock. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Rey Keshe that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't have any question. I was unfairly blocked by you and MisterShiney, so yea I little bit pissed off that's all. But I'm happy to see it ended like it has to be. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rey Keshe‎ (talk • contribs) 10:25, 15 April 2013.

First off, MisterShiney had nothing to do with your block: it was my call and mine alone. Secondly, if you feel your block was unjust you could have appealed it. In addition, your block wasn't unfair at all, since you were appropriately warned and given plenty of time to stop the edit warring. You persisted, however.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:BRD if you want to prevent this ordeal from happening again.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 10:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I told you, I'm happy with the ending. And I was just doing my job by undoing his wrong, can't blame me for it. Don't make a big deal from it, no hard feelings. ;) Rey Keshe‎

Awesome. Then we'll get along just fine! By the way, reading WP:SIGN may also be useful as you're not signing your comments properly yet.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gee thanks, I'll read it.

Once Upon a Time (season 2)

I'm sorry to have to warn you again, but...

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Once Upon a Time (season 2), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Game of Thrones characters

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at List of Game of Thrones characters, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I watch Game of Thrones all over from the begginig and this is the exact number of episodes the characters appeard in.

My comment referred to you a) removing content from articles without giving an explanation in the edit summary and b) removing the notes that state a certain character has been credited for an episode in which he or she does not actually appear.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 13:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FICTION

Have you read Manual of Style? What do you make of that? If someone watches the first episode right now is Ed Stark for him dead or alive? In any book about fiction: Is Ed Stark in books dead or alive? Do you think that the verb "is" make any sense for books, films? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this supposed to show the curent status. I mean there are spoilers in the text too, how many season they appeard in, how many episodes they appeard in it's all a spoiler. And who goes to check the character story they are just starting to watch. If you are willing to deleting status section which was here for 4 years and leave the text below where its saying that the character is dead, then what is the point? -- Rey Keshe 21:08, 28 June 2014

This has nothing to do with spoilers. I think yo are affected by the fact that the show is still running. Take a show that ended 20-30 years ago. What happens to these characters? Are they "dead or alive"? Would you ever say that Boromir's status from The Lord of the Rings is "dead" because he was killed by Orcs? Does "status" any sense in this case? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im agree with you. When the show is finished, the status doesn't matter. But it's still running. Don't you think that people need to be able to see the ongoing status. -- Rey Keshe 21:18, 28 June 2014

If you read the Manual of Style carefully you'll see that in fiction nothing "was" everything "is". Ed Stark did not die. Ed Stark dies on the 9th episode. See the difference. We are not Wikinews we are Wikipedia and out articles are should aim to be stable. Moreover, we try to address to all readers not only in US/Canada but also in all English-speaking readers. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews tries to be stable too! You might find n:Wikinews:For Wikipedians useful. Microchip08 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip08 thanks for the heads up. This strengthens my argument that we should write articles from a more neutral perspective and not based on current events. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that Ned Stark dies on the 9th episode right? So what is he now? -- Rey Keshe 21:25, 28 June 2014

It depends in which episode is on TV tonight :) This is the thing with fiction. Everything is in present. He is dead AND alive. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if the next 3 episode tell the story of what happened 20 years before Ed Stark's death? What would be his status then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't season 4 present us the latest information? The latest information says he died and is staying dead. Aren't we upgrading after every episode for what happened during the episode, using the latest informatin? :) -- Rey Keshe 21:41, 28 June 2014 Then it'll be a flashback episode he's current status will still be deceased, but we will have information about his previous deeds. :) -- Rey Keshe 21:42, 28 June 2014

MOS:FICTION#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective: "Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published." This is how we write articles in Wikipedia in contradiction to The Game of Thrones wikia page. It took a while to realise for myself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FICTION#The_problem_with_in-universe_perspective: "It is acceptable to include both the fictional timeline and the real world timeline, providing that the distinction is not ambiguous; the real world time line should take precedence." Don't you think that in the real world timeline Ned Stark's current fictional status is deceased? :) -- Rey Keshe 22:15, 28 June 2014

No. I think there is no "current" status for any fictional characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So then this is not about Manual of Style, but about what you consider to be possible. You're saying you don't think it's right and you're deleting what other editors upgraded throw the years and not one of them complaned that "there is no "current" status for any fictional characters", but then you came and said this is my opinion and everyone must accept it. :) -- Rey Keshe 22:15, 28 June 2014

As I said we are allowed to write that "Ed Stak dies at s01e09" but we are not allowed to write that his status is "dead" the same way that any given characters may "die" during a series of events in a book or a film and their is no "status". (Greedo dies but he is not dead.) And it is not my own opinion. It is the reason we, as community, removed statutes from various lists, removed "status" field from infoboxes, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see status on Once Upon a Time and The Walking Dead which are ongoing show. For movies there are no reasons for status. They don't continue for seasons and years, there can be sequels, but who need a status for something that comes out in every couple of years. Show on the other hand, they contuniue for douzens of episode for every year and charactes on those fiction may have a status, because the show is ongoing. The status would be useless only when the show is over. :) -- Rey Keshe 22:47, 28 June 2014

Why you make this distinction between ongoing and former shows? I think we examples you gave are examples of badly written articles and unfortunately this is a very common situation in articles about TV shows. We should be very careful, as MOS:FICTION writes "An in-universe perspective can be misleading, inviting unverifiable original research." I 've seen shows that characters "die" and it was just a plot twist and characters were not dead. Anyway. No hard feelings. Thanks for the debate :) I hope we get more feedback by more editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :) As long as there is a Status section, I'm happy that I can contribute. We can't agree with each other for everything. I would really love if other editors got themself in our little debate. lol :) -- Rey Keshe 23:06, 28 June 2014

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Game of Thrones (season 5). 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Sandstein 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Vikings (TV series) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Your recent editing history at Vikings (season 4) 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 article's 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. Katie^talk 01:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 11 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Vikings (TV series) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rey Keshe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rey Keshe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]