User talk:Robberey1705

Cleanup on August 7, 2017. Start new discussions under the line.

_________________________________________

August 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Edits with which you do not agree are not disruptive unless specifically designed to disrupt the article. Like you did with incorrect and excessive labeling of perfectly reasonable edits as vandalism, you have abused Wikipedia policies and expectations in order to intimidate other editors by describing perfectly reasonable edits as disruptive. It is clear you lack the good judgment to continue to edit here, you refuse or are unable to assume good faith on the part of other editors, and further action is needed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:NLT

We have a crystal clear policy against making legal threats: WP:NLT. You are, of course, legally allowed to try to sue whoever you want to, but you cannot edit WP while doing so, or threatening to do so. You'll need to withdraw that legal threat if you wish to continue editing here. Since I've gone ahead and removed the clear violation of policy, the way to indicate you withdraw it is to say so here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thank you for your speedy action in response to it; please see also this edit summary made just before the post on my talk page, and this one from last month. I let the first one go because he appears to be in Europe and because, given his generally belligerent edit summary style and complete inability to assume good faith, coupled with his obvious narcissism, it struck me as all blow and no go. Now with these last two edits, I feel sufficiently under threat that action is needed.

This is an editor with a long, long history of failure to WP:AGF, and who accuses editors making perfectly reasonable and innocent edits of vandalism, and now more recently of disruptive editing (difs on demand, but just scan his contributions page for a sample of his editorial style). That accusation, made in response to a minor edit, lead to my most recent warning. Because we both edit heavily on television program articles, we cross paths fairly routinely, which he's woven into some sort of stalking (a term he's been throwing at me for the last couple months) on my part. Although I'm loathe to do so, I had considered building a case against him at WP:ANI, but that's as far as it goes. The rest is his vivid imagination. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Robbery1705 has made what I consider a suitable retraction on my talk page. As I say there, I have no real interest in trying to solve this mutual battleground behavior today. Trying to do so would be exhausting, futile and depressing. I need to pay more attention to the line from Desiderata on my user page. Let me know if a legal threat is made again. My free advice to R1705 is not to reply to anything here, but I'm not going to do anything about it if they don't follow my advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

He needs to retract the accusation that I attempted to compromise his e-mail account, which his made up out of whole cloth. That's wholly unacceptable. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the free advise. But there's one thing, and that's the only thing I answer: for now, I can't say, that this was you, but Google asks you, if you loged in from elsewhere and if the answer is no, they show you an IP. And this IP is an IP from California, and I really don't know anyone who could know this e-mail-adress, as it is used for really nothing else but wikipedia. And so you were the first person a had in mind, because it's not that complicated adding the username I use here to an "@gmail". But I don't accuse you. As I said: I will take some time off here on english language wikipedia, and maybe so you should too. I won't go into further action, if this "stalking" ends. Edit what you want. But you really can't say you don't follow me, if you start reediting things on articles, you have never been on before. That because you watch all my actions here on wiki. You even watch changes to my very own user page. And if that's not stalking, then I don't know what it is. Everytime someone added something on my talkpagre, you needed to come up and add something to that, even, everything was stuff, that had nothing to do with you. So I'm okay with it, if you are able to cope with your obsession. Of course I know, that obsessed people will never see there own mistakes. I've been together with a psychologist for quite a long time and i heared stories... So just let us end this. If it wasn't you with the account, it was someone else. --Robberey1705 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You know, Robberey, you wouldn't have these problems if you'd just speak to other editors in a civil manner, learn a few policies and stop making all manner of false accusations, whether it be vandalism, disruptive editing, or making outrageous accusations. California has a population of 39.25 million and gmail accounts are notoriously insecure, yet the only thought you have is that I'd tamper with your email account. That's pretty pathetic. But it explains why you're so convinced that fairly ordinary intersections between our edits is stalking. Believe it or not, you are a blip on my radar, nothing more. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

• I said this on Floquenbeam's talk page (it was reverted, why I don't know), but I'll say it again: Drmargi and Robberey1705 need to disentangle themselves from each other. If Robberey1705 is really no more than "a blip on Drmargi's radar", it should be no trouble for Drmargi to ignore him. If Robberey1705 really is making unacceptable edits, someone else will revert them. Robberey1705, you need to dial it down too. pbp 18:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably because it didn't contribute anything there, as is the case here. If you're mad at me, fine, be mad at me, but you're just making yourself look ridiculous. Is winning an argument really worth all the frenzied energy you've expended chasing me around the site in the last 24 hours? There have got to be better things for you to do. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, fine, ignore my advice and ABF toward me. All I'm saying is that if you continue engaging with Robberey, it's probably not going to be a particularly enjoyable experience for you, even if you get your way in the long run. This should be blatantly obvious to anyone who gives the slightest perusal of the interactions between the two of you. And if you think this is all about "winning" on the 2024/2028 Olympic bid, it isn't. If anything, I'm trying to help you avoid future uncomfortable experiences with Robberey. pbp 19:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Floquenbeam made everything abundantly clear, and frankly, given your somewhat skewed perspective, you're in no position to be giving anyone advise about dealing with other editors. You need to take a look at your own actions in the last 48 hours or so. All I can say is, "Et tu?" We're done here. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 22:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy!

The editors on Talk:Happy! (TV series) were asking a real question. Your revert and edit summary seems rather WP:BITEy. Answering them and explaining signature etiquette would have been a much friendlier way to handle it. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is us

A discussion was started on Brojam's talk page and The List of This Is Us episodes talk page. Do not revert the edit until the discussion is complete. Also, there is a series of 4 edits done on 4 different pages. By you reverting just the 1 edit, you're making this much more confusing. Please stop. Rswallis10 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

an help for Katrin Heß and Sabrina Ferilli

Good evening from Coreca, I'm writing to say hello, thank you and know how you are. I'm pretty good for now, working intensely in the olives. So I write to you to ask for a very but very valuable help, which will be generously and generously recompensed. I tell you these two articles that serve a hand of help, providence I dare say, and only you who are practical can help me. Right and no more than 10 minutes of your precious time to save Sabrina Ferilli and Katrin Heß, or rather their biographies. then if I can do something for you in Sicilian and Sicilian I will be happy to help you. a fervent greeting from Calabria--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not do on Rellik (TV series). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Edit descriptions like, 'All edits by IP are BS' do not encourage editors to make constructive contributions. I fully believe they meant well in their additions. It would not have harmed for you to have explained your issues on their talk page, rather than leaving an unnecessarily rude revert message on an article page. Looking through your contributions, and this talk page, you have a history of 'losing your cool' when dealing with others. –Sb2001 00:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Eline Powell ‎

Why did you do what you did? Why would I want you to move a valid redirect into my userspace? Also, you didn't do it correctly. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Use of "back nine"

Robberey, you seem to have the mistaken idea that they only way to describe the remaining episode order for a 22 episode first season is as the "back nine." That's utter nonsense. Back nine is industry media jargon, coined by Variety Magazine, that is picked up and in common use. But it is far from being the only way to describe those additional nine episodes. Your reverts not only forced in industry jargon that ordinary readers may not understand, but it also added a grammatical error that suggested that the remaining order was 13, not nine, episodes. That was the principal reason for my reverts. Your grammar tends to be poor, and you frequently mis-use words. Most of the time these days, I leave that to other editors since your obnoxious interpersonal behavior hasn't improved and I'm simply tired of it, but this was too egregious an error imposed on my grammatically and semantically correct edit to overlook.

Describing those episodes as the final, remaining or additional episodes in the season order are perfectly correct, perfectly valid uses of other adjectives. This is an encyclopedia, not an industry publication, and there is no one way to describe the episodes that complete a full season order. You are both edit warring and editing disruptively, things you're very fond of accusing other editors of doing, by forcing that edit. The version that it there now is acceptable, so leave it alone. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Robberey1705. 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)

Reverie (TV Series)

You recently deleted a very small addition I made to the page for Reverie. I was preparing to make a much larger edit but now am afraid I'll be wasting my time. You said IMDB was not an acceptable source. I work on the show. Am I an acceptable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrycaldwell (talk • contribs) 23:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary

May I ask what "Suitable own purpose edit" means? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 20:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And if the character appeared in 2 episodes, isn't that by definition "recurring"? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I answer you both in one: own purpose edits means an edit, by someone who is a minor actor him- or herself. We ofter have that, minors and extras who wanna get famous, they edit their names into wikipedia articles, even without being a noticeable charakter on the show. We, which means me and some other editors, call this for a long time.Check out some article's histories for further.

And “recurring“ means at least appearing in 3 or more episodes. I dont have given this definition, thats something that came up through the wikipedia-editors AlexTheWhovian and DrMargi. --Robberey1705 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't involve me in your crabby, uninterpretable editorial decisions. Take some responsibility for your own choices; you're certainly nasty enough to others whose edits you don't like. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm yielding on the "recurring" thing. WP:TVCAST seems to leave it up for some interpretation, with emphasis on arcs, rather than appearance count. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I opened up a can of worms lol. You cannot make claims like that without evidence. Nk3play2 has been here since 2008 with over 20k edits with no evidence supporting claims that are made "by someone who is a minor actor him- or herself". This mounts to personal attacks. Please check before making such claims. I second Drmargi.

I have never, ever heard someone call these types of edit, which actually would be WP:COI, as "suitable own purpose edit". Not to mention grammatically it makes absolute no sense, which is why I asked. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 05:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

His grammar is generally poor, but he's no more responsive to feedback about his grammar and word usage than he is his sterling personality. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"His" grammar is actually "poor" as "he" is no native speaker of English. Therefore "he" might be able to give you some lessons in German, Polish and Latin. And now stop your discussion on my page and do it elsewhere. And Margi, in first line, this goes to you. We still have our little dispute over your stalking towards my person, which still isn't over. Remember that? Hope so. --Robberey1705 (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Then go edit in German, Polish or Latin on the appropriate Wikipedia. If you choose to edit here, you open yourself and your sub-standard English up to scrutiny. Whatever other languages you may or may not speak are irrelevant. Oh, and if you don't mention me on your talk page, I don't come here. If you do, I get an alert, and you've left yourself open to my response. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, this discussion is about your behaviour and your conduct on wikipedia. The only place these types of discussions belong here, and Admin boards of course. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 12:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

You came here because you watch this page, my dear. You do that for longer time, remember. I haven't "mentioned" you, you actually weren't noticed" about "mentioning" you, as there was no link to your person. You just keep here like every time you come here to get off your s... . You really seem to have a boring life for someone who claims to be a "Dr." and should spend more time on a good job then on the internet. But thats not my business. --Robberey1705 (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Robberey, that's enough. You are making personal attacks and should cease immediately. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 12:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ghost Nation

I notice that you’ve recently created a disambiguation page for Ghost Nation. It should be noted that a disambiguation page is only required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. In this case there is only one article relating to Ghost Nation, therefore a disambiguation page is not required. Dan arndt (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Nightflyers (TV series)

Hi, I'm Babymissfortune. Robberey1705, thanks for creating Nightflyers (TV series)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please provide references, once they became more available. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The Heiresses (TV series)

I see that you have chosen to be belligerent rather than take advice with repect to your deletion proposal of this article. I don't know how you made your proposal, but you need to undo it and redo it according to the instructions at WP:PROD. The way that you did it means that the proposal will not expire until March, rather than the usual seven days. This is nothing to do with the 24-hour clock, but simply that you have not followed the correct procedure by placing {{subst:Proposed deletion|concern=reason for proposed deletion}} on the page. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted the page but 86.17.222.157 is correct, your prod was placed incorrectly. It might be worth using WP:TWINKLE in the future--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Civil edit summaries

Once again, a reminder to remain polite and civil when writing edit summaries. You can make your point just as effectively without talking to editors as though they are stupid. This summary is totally out of line; the editor made an honest mistake. Try assuming good faith, something you never do. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sankt Maik, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stromberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Utopia (UK TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please stop removing well-sourced material from Alternative for Germany or you may be blocked from editing. Note also that your own version is not coherent English; I don't understand what "Parts of the AfD have and tendencies linked to right wing parties movements" means. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC).

If you would have checked up the hiatory of the article, you would have found out, that what you state is NOT “MY VERSION“. I just removed an adding of sources which are linked to left wing extremism and therefore state POV. Please check up article historys before you confront editors with things, they haven't done. Might borough some glasses....--Robberey1705 (talk)

I hope you don't mind my fixing your post to stop it snuggling up against mine. Yes, I see the incoherent version you restored was created by someone else,[1] who I have now also warned. What I don't understand is why you restored it (and in doing so messed up the syntax a bit more). You have to take responsibility for removing all those sources. Calling them "left wing extremism" is just your opinion. You don't get to remove sourced text because you don't like it and its sources. Also, you know what edit warring is; you have been blocked for it before. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC).

Killing Eve Comment

Whilst you may consider information on WP as "unnecessary" let me assure you that useful information is exactly why WP is edited. In this instance it was details of the central location where the series is set, which will certainly be of interest to those who do not live in London. Given that presently the series is only available on BBC America that will be almost the entirety of the audience. --AlisonW (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

DO NOT remove comments made to you from your talk page. That will quickly result in other editors presuming you have something to hid. Indeed, reading the above it is clear that you do. As Bishonen has noted, you are likely to be blocked for such behaviour. The comment I made is to *you* not to the article. --AlisonW (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You would do well to listen to what Alison says, given she is an administrator, and dial down your attitude. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with @Drmargi: that you need to dial down the attitude and take a look at the manner in which you talk to other editors especially in your edit summaries. You are actually quite rude and confrontational. Wikipedia is a place for working together to create the best possible sources of information that everyone can access from anywhere. You general demeanor does not foster a good work environment for that to occur in. – BoogerD (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Rellik (TV series)

Added the data, but kept it from intruding on visible table. Can follow up after final title is made known. Jmg38 (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Magnum P.I.

Your move of the Magnum P.I. has been reverted as a WP:BOLD edit and against WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Alex^TW 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See, for example: Fantasy Island vs. Fantasy Island (1998 TV series). The former is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the situation in this case is similar. Magnum, P.I. should not be moved again without a formal WP:Requested move. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Untitled ABC Studios International TV series for French broadcaster M6) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Untitled ABC Studios International TV series for French broadcaster M6, Robberey1705!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please move this article to a more appropriate title as soon as the actual title of the series becomes known.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Goliath

I saw in one of the reference links that season 1 released at 12AM. Is season 2 the same? You don't think people might like to know? (thanks for deleting my post.) still signed Robinrobin (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Flack (TV series)

Hello, Robberey1705,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Flack (TV series) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flack (TV series) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Jamez42 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about The Trial Of Christine Keeler

Hello, Robberey1705,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Trial Of Christine Keeler should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trial Of Christine Keeler .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Jamez42 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Reckoning (TV series)

Hello, Robberey1705,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Reckoning (TV series) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reckoning (TV series) .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Jamez42 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The Trial Of Christine Keeler moved to draftspace

Per this deletion discussion The Trial Of Christine Keeler has been moved to the draft space.

FBI

um you better check this out at http://tviv.org/F.B.I. to see who the real creator of this show

:)

[2] Consistist of ten episodes." Read what you write... -- Alex^TW 11:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Treadstone moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Treadstone, has been published WP:TOOSOON. Per WP:NYF, series that have not begun principal photography should not have their own articles in the mainspace.

In the absence of extensive non-routine coverage by reliable sources, the article should stay in draftspace until principal photography begins (which according to the article, will occur in 2019) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Muscle Shoals (TV series)

Hello, Robberey1705. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Muscle Shoals".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 09:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Metropolis (US TV series)

Hello, Robberey1705. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Metropolis".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. JMHamo (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Robberey1705. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sandstein 23:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The Trial Of/of Christine Keeler

Hi there, I would like to formally apologise for our little misunderstanding earlier. I hope we can both work on the Trial Of(/of X) ) Christine Keeler page together.Saxonvsjones (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Famous (TV series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Famous (TV series) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous (TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Vision and Scarlet Witch

It was moved to draft space because

• A) You tagged it with "commenting out categories per WP:DRAFTNOCAT" thus indicating it is a draft
• B) does not meet notability yet as it has only been covered by entertainment news sources (Hollywood Reporter, etc.) not major news outlets.
• C) "engaging a writer and showrunner is a clear start of production" film is the clear start of production not hiring a writer and showrunner.

It was redirect to Scarlet Witch as it has the information about the TV show as it was original only about her. Spshu (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch

A tag has been placed on Draft:The Vision and Scarlet Witch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Duplicate page of Draft:Vision and the Scarlet Witch. I suggest that the main draft should be renamed to this new title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

Hi there - This edit appears, at first glance, to be quite rude. I would suggest you strike and rephrase it to not cast aspersions on the nominator; your Keep !vote will probably carry more weight that way, too. Additionally; this is enwiki, not dewiki. It is polite to speak English here - Although the nominator speaks German, there are other non-German speakers who are also interested in this topic. Bis bald! -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 16:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I agree. I didn't care enough to leave a message about this yet, but the German comment also made me raise an eyebrow, not just because of the language. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Dublin Murders moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Dublin Murders, does not have enough sources and citations 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). Further, because this is a show that is not yet released, it should not be published without evidence that it is out of pre-production, per WP:NFF. 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. Citrivescence (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Untitled ABC Studios International TV series for French broadcaster M6 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled ABC Studios International TV series for French broadcaster M6. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled ABC Studios International TV series for French broadcaster M6 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Drafts

You have been warned multiple times about creating articles too early. Penny Dreadful: City of Angels and Resident Alien (TV series) have been moved to the draft space; neither series has yet began filming. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Four more... -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (The Murders) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Murders.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

please add plot, development, and critical reception sections

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Citrivescence}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Citrivescence (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Metropolis (US TV series)

Hello, Robberey1705. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Metropolis".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Librem5/Pinephone

I just spotted your reversal at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Librem_5&oldid=prev&diff=937871403 and still think that my edit makes sense. I've explained it in the revision comment: The pinephone is one of many already listed in "List of open-source mobile phones". The librem5 and pinephone are often compared with one another, but also with other phones, notably the fairphone. There doesn't seem to be a good reason to single out the pinephone on the librem5 page, just like the librem5 isn't mentioned on the pinephone page.

You suggest searching for a discussion before doing things like that, but the pinephone link was originally added without any discussion or comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Librem_5&diff=928838913&oldid=928838780 so why didn't that get reverted ? Both phones are IMHO great products, but Wikipedia should remain neutral, which I think means removing this particular link. Moltonel3xCombo (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Brave New World (upcoming TV series)

Hello, Robberey1705. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Brave New World".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gorilla and the Bird

The article Gorilla and the Bird has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

"Upcoming" since 2018 with no further progress made. Sources say nothing except that it's coming soon and involves a director who is now dead, likely indicating that the show was aborted with no further verifiable content made.

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Gorilla and the Bird for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gorilla and the Bird is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gorilla and the Bird until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Avonmore (Bryan Ferry album" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Avonmore (Bryan Ferry album has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 13 § Avonmore (Bryan Ferry album until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)