User talk:TheMaxM1

February 2023

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to 2022 in anime have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: 2022 in anime was changed by TheMaxM1 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874968 on 2023-02-25T05:18:43+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dragon Ball Z, 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. Xexerss (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Former names of transgender people

Per MOS:GENDERID, previous names of transgender people should only be included if they were notable while using that name. This has been extensively discussed on Talk:Rachel Levine and the consensus so far is that she wasn't notable before going by Rachel. Thanks. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Genie Family, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Waxworker (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at One Piece (1999 TV series), 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. Xexerss (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Xexerss. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to One Piece (1999 TV series) have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a chat room

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dragon Ball (TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. Thank you. Xexerss (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Grave of the Fireflies, 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. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheMaxM1, I appreciate the edits you've been making to the articles on Studio Ghibli films recently, but you must include a reference to a reliable source when you add content to an article, as required by the verifiability policy. You're also not leaving edit summaries, which makes it difficult for other editors to audit the changes you're making, especially on larger edits like the ones you make to tables. Please take a moment and adjust your editing style — I see that several editors have warned you about similar issues in the past — to avoid getting into trouble or possibly being blocked from editing. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I can't find a source, should I put in a "Citation needed" template? TheMaxM1 (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Citation needed}} template is almost exclusively used for existing material that does not have a source, not for material that you're adding. Again, as the verifiability policy states: "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." I can see that you've reinstated the material with that template, and I'm going to revert it for the reasons I mentioned. Please find an appropriate citation before adding it back in. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To save you some time, I'll mention that I've done my own research on the 1988 dub in the past and I was not able to track down the production company. I put everything I could find at the time into this footnote. There are some sources that refer to it as the "Magnum dub", but several other people, including scholars and Streamline executives, have never pinned down a name to it. This is why the article currently claims the dub's production company is unknown. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheMaxM1, you are now edit-warring by reverting, again, to your preferred version of the article without explanation. I mentioned above why sourcing was necessary, and in this edit summary why the table alterations were not helpful. The accessibility concerns I mentioned relate to MOS:DTAB markup issues, your use of the {{Nihongo}} template within the row header (which makes screen readers waste time on the Japanese transliterations), and your shuffling of dates in an inconsistent manner. I'm going to ask you to restore the status quo revision until we can come to a consensus on the matter. See the template message below for relevant links.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Castle in the Sky. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheMaxM1, you've now changed back to your version without explanation again. Please revert yourself and open a conversation on the talk page of the article explaining why you think the reasons I've provided above aren't sufficient. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other names were pseudonyms used, so I changed them to their real names. --TheMaxM1 (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey TheMaxM1, I've moved your reply back over here so we can keep the thread of the conversation intact — hope you don't mind. I'm not sure what pseudonyms you're referring to, but my issues, as I explained above, are your formatting of the table headers (removal/moving of the dates) and use of the {{Nihongo}} template in the row header. Since I think you have still not explained your changes sufficiently, I have restored the status quo revision until a consensus is established. Please do not revert again; I have no intention of getting you blocked for edit-warring. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm pretty sure you mean well, but I don't know what you mean by "status quo" in taking out the {{Nihongo}} templates in the row headers for the characters. What is wrong with that? Nobody has objected to the other articles with such changes. Do you keep reverting my edits because you want to discern between the English and Japanese names? Also, does the movie have a Japanese redub? Why does it say "Original, 1986"? That implies that some other version has recast VAs. So I have to remove them. --TheMaxM1 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that no one else has voiced objections on other Studio Ghibli–related articles; in my experience edits to them get very little oversight. Also, your changes were generally improvements to the other articles, as they didn't have excellent table formatting beforehand. On the Castle in the Sky article, however, there are reasons the table is formatted as it is. The {{Nihongo}} template being within the row header cell makes some screen readers unnecessarily read out the Japanese text and transliteration when other cells in that row are read, which is why they're separated into a different cell. The status quo in this case is the last revision before any disputed edits are made; the best practice is to keep this version stable until there's consensus for the changes. I can see you've gone ahead and reverted again against my request, but I'm going to let that be as long as you continue discussing your reasoning. If you think the "original, 1986" is confusing, we can work on that. I would prefer to keep the date to maintain consistency and the sense of a timeline with the two English dubs, but I'm neutral on removing the "original". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]