User talk:Zvig47

Stop vandalizing Glass page

We have talk pages for a reason. This has already been debated. And your account smacks of a single purpose account, to game the Glass page to spin bad press of this movie. Take it up there please. First warning.Luciusfoxx (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I’ve edited more than that.

I use to not have an account and I edited with an I.P. Address and I just created this one. I have also edited Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse so you can’t accuse me of that. Zvig47 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Then list "all those sources" that allegedly back up your claim here...and not blogs or some aggregator that requires speculation on our part. I have 3+ sources that back up the current contributions. I'm a fan of this film too, but that doesn't make me a critic, the majority of which simply don't like it. Please respect the facts, and the present consensus. The critics were as a whole disappointed in the film. It's the audience that had a mixed reaction, in that they don't agree with the critics. Not the same thing. Luciusfoxx (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry

I thought you were being stubborn on this, but then I realized you’re just doing your job, while I’m just being a fan of the movie. I promise if I ever edit again, I’ll have my facts and sources. Zvig47 (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Appreciate the candor and honesty. Welcome to wikipedia.Luciusfoxx (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

I’ll try to do my best. Zvig47 (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

South Park

As I have already pointed out, there is a consensus at the talk page for List of South Park episodes that the Paramount+ films be treated as episodes, not feature films. If you disagree with this, please discuss the matter there.

In the meantime I have removed the link to your South Park (film series) article. It would be easiest if you delete this article yourself but I'll go through the nomination for deletion process if you don't. Barry Wom (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your continued edit history at articles including South Park, List of South Park episodes, and others is demonstrating that you are not cooperating with the consensus and continuing to make your own edits based on your beliefs. This is unacceptable. Until you start cooperating with other editors it would be wise to stop editing any South Park-related page. Any further edits you perform on these pages will be viewed as vandalism and reported as such. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at List of South Park episodes, you may be blocked from editing. SanAnMan (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of South Park episodes 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. SanAnMan (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@ SanAnMan I understand that what I am doing resulted in an edit war now and will not happen again. I’ve decided to refrain from major edits towards South Park related articles until a final decision be made on the film series page. While we’re on the subject though, may I ask what your personal belief is about the Paramount+ films placement?

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Charlie Puth discography, you may be blocked from editing. Do not add unsourced chart positions to Wikipedia. Ss112 23:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you opening a discussion on my talk page? Reply here. That's the etiquette when somebody posts on your talk page first—don't split the conversation. Now, please do me the favour of clicking this link to your edit. Where did you provide a source? That's right—you didn't. I guess you must have thought the citation at the top of the column contains proof of the new peak of "Light Switch". Well, if you thought so, you thought wrong. The Hot 100 source in the header at this time does not contain any such peak. Look at it yourself. Therefore you added unsourced information. I reverted you, warned you, then re-added it with a source. Don't add unsourced information to Wikipedia. Ss112 23:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ss112 Listen I see no point in any of this. It was my mistake to assume it wasn’t listed on the charts already considering they announced it on twitter. That’s all that happened. This is all the result of accidental laziness. You keep editing your pages, I keep editing mine, and if we cross paths again you’ll see sources with mine. Zvig47 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There was a point, because adding unsourced information, whatever the reason (including ignorance), is against Wikipedia policy. I don't know what you mean by "my pages", I don't care, and it doesn't matter anyway. Regardless, glad to read you'll be providing sources in future, because "accidental laziness" will not be a valid excuse from here on out (and debatably isn't in the first place). Billboard announces chart positions on Twitter hours before they show up on their website—in the interim, extra sources must be provided to verify them. Thanks. Ss112 00:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You misconstrued what I was saying. I said I see no point in arguing as you were clearly right. By “your pages”, I mean you will continue to edit pages, as will I. All in all thank you for letting me know about the twitter billboard announcements. Zvig47 (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of South Park (film series) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article South Park (film 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/South Park (film 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.

SanAnMan (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Boomtown Rats

Hello. I have reverted your edit to The Boomtown Rats; what you put was not good English (you could have put without the inclusion of Fingers or Cott, which would have been better, but even that would have been an unnecessary change, as reformed in 2013, without Fingers or Cott is perfectly good and clear English). Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 10:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back it did not flow as well as I thought it did. My apologies Zvig47 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Silk Sonic and others

We need to have a little talk here.

First things first, "Love's Train" was a song released just to celebrate Valentine's Day. You have several reliable publications such as Billboard, Roling Stone, NME, Pitchfork and many more on the article non of which call it a single, or promo single, or even say "to promote the album". They just say it was released to celebrate Valentine's Day, doesn't make it a promo single of the album. Even Silk Sonic said so.

Secondly, the album will have a vinyl edition that includes the song mentioned above. However, the album has already been re-release on digital platforms such as Spotify, Apple Music and others way before the vinyl was even announced. However, we can just call it a bonus track that has both references so people understand it was both included on the digital and physical release. How does that sound?

Lastly, you are indeed correct the intro was released as a promo single.

Let me know something. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A promo single does not need to be released in promotion of an album. Regardless of the name, a promo single is basically a song that does not have the same promotion or treatment of a single, but is still released for free (at least for the time being) and usually has album art. I’m not trying to have an edit battle with you, it’s just that we sometimes have opposing views on Silk Sonic. Apple Music lists promotional singles as singles, and the song is listed as a single by Apple Music. Zvig47 (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The big difference between a promo single and normal single is the lack of official radio ads. Moreover, they are usually released leading up to an album, not after an album as been released or in between singles released. On top of that, not publication even called it a single, promo single just a song to celebrate valentine's day. Sure it is available for download and stream...but does that make it a promo single? Promotional single for valentine's day? What is that? Nothing...

We do and we are to put an end to that, one is done. "Silk Sonic intro" is indeed a promo single, I was wrong about it. That's why I came here in order to solve this an avoid an edit war. I still need to know what do you think of my suggestion regarding the album or if you have any other. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that loves train should just be listed as a bonus track. It is fine the way it is right now. But, if we are to assign what the song would be in promotion of, I think it can be said that Love’s Train is a promotional single, in promotion of the Webstore exclusive/alternative streaming version of the album. It is more than just a song as many list it as a single/promo single. Zvig47 (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I have made a change to An Evening with Silk Sonic because of Love Train, please see if you agree so we can move on to the next topic.

That's a bit of a stretch isn't it? The song was released two months prior to any announcement of a web store vinyl release and it took a while to be added to the album. Who is this many? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the previous change on the album’s page. I still believe due to its listing on Spotify and Apple Music, loves train should be listed as a promotional single. Zvig47 (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

As of right now, two issues are solved. Only one, regarding "Love's Train" as a promotional single or regular song. I can see where you are coming from and you have a point there, however I have to disagree as most sources call it either cover, song, track...anything but single or promo record or something in this vein. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess for now we will have to agree to disagree. Until I recover further information, I will stop further edits regarding its placement as a song or promo single. I will most likely try to find more information regarding this, but this will be further down the line. Zvig47 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I do agree with that affirmation. Of course, if you find something regarding it just let me know on my talk page. I'm sure we can discuss it further and reach an agreement when new information is provided. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi again! I guess our little dispute is settled, "Love's Train" is not a regular song, nor a promo single. It was released as an official single in Italy. Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Pigsonthewing. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Hey, Hey, Rise Up!. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn’t see this until now. My apologies Zvig47 (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Silk Sonic

Hello!

Since you do most of the editing on the Silk Sonic page, would it be ok with you to change the chart position of the songs in France to the R&B/Hip-Hop chart in the US? They are an R&B super duo and it better represents their music style on the correct charts like most R&B or hip-hop acts on wiki.

Cheers, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for that late reply, but I absolutely agree with you. Judging by their chart positions, Silk Sonic is not the most popular in France and their music should be better represented by the R&B/Hip-Hop chart. While we’re on the topic though I must ask, do you believe the Love’s Train song was a single in the US. I know it was a single in Italy so there’s no reason it shouldn’t be listed as a single, but I don’t think it was a single in the US. Bruno Mars has had a couple songs released as singles exclusively in one country, and although they may have attained a following or even some chart success in the US, that wouldn’t make it a single released in the US. I only mention this because I realized the note saying that Love’s Train was only released as a single in Italy had been removed. Just wondering your thoughts. Zvig47 (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm the one who is sorry for the late replay, but I have been busier than I expected. I will do the change on the charts as soon as I can. Regarding that exclusive release, I thought the same, however Billboard confirmed it as an official single in the US [1]. I believe it was only released to Urban/R&B stations, but that is only an assumption from what I have seen from AllAcess and the BB R&B charts. Moreover, per Wikipedia:Singles criteria "The song was referred to as a single by an authoritative, music-oriented media outlet (e.g., Billboard, Official Charts Company)", henceforth I removed the note, but I get what you mean. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Pink Floyd has an RFC

Pink Floyd has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TSP (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Plot descriptions cannot be copied from other sources, including official sources and IMDb, unless these can be verified to be public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. They must be written in original language to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. On Top Gun (franchise). — Diannaa (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Top Gun (franchise). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Top Gun (franchise) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top Gun (franchise) 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/Top Gun (franchise) 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 until the discussion has finished.

CreecregofLife (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Top Gun

Can you provide a link to that discussion "Deletion discussion of Top Gun (franchise)". Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gun (franchise). Zvig47 (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Top Gun. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. BilCat (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joker (Arthur Fleck) (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Joker (Arthur Fleck) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Zvig47! Having an article draft 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! Dan arndt (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Blade

Hi, I moved the page back because 1) without the "character" part in the title the article ambigious if it is refering to the character or the film franchise itself, and 2) this version did not just appear on film but the TV series as well. ★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I was modeling it after the Tobey Maguire incarnation of Spider-Man. His page is titled Peter Parker (Sam Raimi film series). I figured it would work in this situation too. Plus I’m pretty sure there isn’t going to be a standalone Blade trilogy page and a franchise page. If there were to be one it would be in the distant future after multiple MCU Blade films. We could potentially just shorten it to Blade (New Line) as it’s current state seems too long and too much. Let me know what you think. Zvig47 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

your stupidity (rick james and donda 2 guy)

i don’t know who the fuck you think you are bucking up anonymously on someone’s talk page, but stop lmfao. it takes a quick google search to see that his estate (under his name) expressed their approval for the song on twitter.

also my donda 2 edits were factually correct. the album is going to have an entirely new rollout shortly, as made known by ye’s team. use your google machine (the same one you used to make this dumbass post on my page).

miss me with this bullshit Nickiandyeoutsold (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Buddy this is highly unprofessional. I was offering advice. If you are incapable of that there will be someone who blocks you in the future. Since you copy and pasted your message I’ll do the same with my response. First off this isn’t anonymous, I literally credited myself at the bottom. Second there’s a difference in saying that Rick James praised a song and his estate, and even so you didn't cite it. If your Donda 2 edits were "factually correct", then CITE THEM. And look I tried with you man, if you’re warned or blocked after this just know I tried to help you. Zvig47 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Type" at Donda 2

There's a reason you're the only person trying to change the TYPE field at Donda 2 while several others are reverting your edits. First, you are misunderstanding what the TYPE field is about. See the relevant sub-section at Template:Infobox album, while your actions have caused the Donda 2 article to show up at Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes several times. Everyone is calling this item an "album" and unless it's from a live concert, all music is recorded in a studio even if it's an unconventional facility. You are correct that Donda 2 is an unusual item with an innovative release strategy, but you are trying to cram all of that into the TYPE field in a very awkward way. Per Wikipedia's policies, that is not the right place to put it. If you have remaining questions, consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Spiral (2021 film), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CastJared (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Snooze (SZA song) (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman 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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Snooze (SZA song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Her Loss. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you see where I’m coming from in what I’m saying. I have no problem with saying it got mixed reviews, but instead of using a reliable website that is meant to aggregate a consensus for an album, the source provided only mentions the reception in passing with no source. Zvig47 (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to John Carter (film) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 10:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the disruptive editors

Having reviewed your talk page I see you have a history of edit-warring and several warnings for being disruptive. Forgive me in advance then for not AGF.

To be clear, I say to at least seek consensus first for this odd esoteric edit(s) that finds NO precedent on ANY other film page. Why? Since when do we synthesize badly-sourced data to use “ranges”?!? per WP:synthesis, WP:Undue and WP:OR. See below for the most recent UPDATED source(s), parroting the plurality of sources and the prevailing consensus in the press https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/

(Excerpt)“That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number).”(End quote)

If you don’t think that’s cogent-enough or specific enough, then per WP:BURDEN, please back up YOUR very vague claim with specifics. Please also read MOS:FILM, which says "do not synthesize…Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly."

”The Flash” actually omits the roughly $150+ million marketing budget. “Avatar 2” was one of several “Avatar” films made at the same time, so it’s an outlier. And films like MI:DR and several other recent films I just scanned certainly do NOT. However-Yes, some other articles suffer from this LTA in violation of WP:Synthesis. But one article at a time, okay? CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Zvig47 Familiarize yourself with MOS:FILMLEAD: “Any summary of the film's reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources” IN THE PRESS first. That’s what I meant.

Please find a press CONSENSUS in the form of reliable sources to back your claim. Failing that then, sure, initiate a formal RFC on the article’s talkpage so people can debate and vote on the undue weight you are giving this already moot point— i.e.for an admin to come in and decide.

Again, having reviewed your talk page I see you have a history of edit-warring and several warnings for being disruptive. With you now confessing to a WP:Battleground mindset here thank you for reassuring me that I was not wrong to not AGF. CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Hawkeye (2021 TV series), without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not move pages without first starting a discussion at the article's talk page. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's usually wise to bring up a possible title move on the article talk page before doing so unless it could be considered uncontroversial. I see that several of your article page moves have been reverted so clearly they were not uncontroversial. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 5 August 2023 (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) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Hello, I'm DonQuixote. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Marvels‎, 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. DonQuixote (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I left an article by Forbes regarding box office performance. I think you made a mistake because that is very reliable. Zvig47 (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to this where you cited Variety for something that they didn't say. DonQuixote (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Might Delete Later Album !

Hi I’m Annyomus Cat . I noticed you made a change to The Might Delete Later Album But didn’t prove a Reliable source So for now I am changing it back to an album until further notice. Please be aware that without a reliable source you cannot make a change to an article . If you think I’ve made a mistake feel free to reach out ! Annyomus cat (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Two lead singles aren't combined

As Bluesatellite pointed out, this is a mistaken belief. We don't list them as one listing and we shouldn't. They charted separately and have different cover artworks. Even if on some streaming services they are part of the same single, they weren't promoted as a double A-side, which is what a listing like that would mean. If you know of any other album articles with separate lead singles listed in this manner, please let me know so I can correct them as well. Ss112 08:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I’ve seen a couple that I can’t name off the top of my head. The only one that I’ve recently seen is “Honestly, Nevermind”. I’ll try to correct ones I see in the future. Thanks for the heads up Zvig47 (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Promotional single

Please be more careful in labeling songs as promotional singles (i.e. with Taylor Made (song)). A promotional single is a song that receives an official release and is used in promotion of an album, film, TV series, or some other marketing campaign. "Taylor Made" is neither of those things. Regards, ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Moving articles

Your move to Taylor Made Frestyle seems to be made in error. Please remember to be more vigilant in making moves. I see you have no page mover role, so if you want to move articles to the more appropriate title but cannot, go to WP:RM/TR. Thanks, ‍  PSA 🏕️  (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into The Heart Part 6. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi,

I've noticed you've now reverted the list in Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud#Full song chronology three times (1 2 3). Please be aware that this violates WP:3RR and could result in a temporary ban. In the future, please discuss things like this on the talk page rather than edit warring, as it seems you have a history of doing. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Warning: Do no move pages with active move discussions

Do not move pages with open and active move discussions, as you just did [2]. Discussions stay open for seven days or more and are closed by an admin. Moving a page under discussion is extremely disruptive. Do not do it again. Feoffer (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My bad dawg Zvig47 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)