User talk:Arcrev1/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Arcrev1. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Arc Rev!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, CMD (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arc Rev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, InternetArchiveBot, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dingdong Dantes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sana ay Ikaw na Nga and The Voice Generations. 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) 19:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bea Binene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page First Time.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arc Rev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Watchlist, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arc Rev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Wikitable, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arc Rev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Career section, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rochelle Pangilinan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amaya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Arc Rev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Film and Television, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at User talk:Hotwiki. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! Hotwiki (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Encantadia Chronicles: Sang'gre. 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. Hotwiki (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Please seek consensus first, before you revert your contested edits. Hotwiki (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

There's no consensus in the talk page discussion we had.[1] We simply don't agree with each other and reverting each other's edits again and again, is not a good solution. Wait until another editor chimes in. Hotwiki (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Just a re-edit; it doesn't seem to be an edit war. I never revert your edit multiple times. This guideline isn't enough for you, and you're seeking consensus? You mentioned on your talk page that there is a reason why it is mentioned. What reason? — ArćRèv • talk 15:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

You've been reverted twice, and you had disagreements in my talk page and you called me uncollaborative. This is an edit war, especially you restored your changes without a consensus. Hotwiki (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, its clear we aren't going to agree with each other regarding the content you keep trying to remove. So wait until someone chimes in and gather a consensus. Hotwiki (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: You reverted my edit one time; that isn't an edit war. Reverting a second time should be a first-level warning. I did not call you uncollaborative; it is an assumption. I did not directly say you were. You still did not answer my question: what is the purpose of adding a description and disregarding the guideline I mentioned and seeking consensus instead? — ArćRèv • talk 15:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

These are two reverts.[2][3] Again you've been warned because your reverted a contested change without gathering a consensus first, and I warned you sooner as I could, before things escalated more with more reverts. I already answered your question twice in my talk page, so stop hammering me about it as we are only going in circles. How about wait until another editor chimes in. Hotwiki (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: Those reverts were made by you; you are the one who is engaging in an edit war. I just restored my edit once; that's not an edit war. Reverting two times should be warned one time with the first level; you warned me second level. And your reason for the reversion isn't enough compared to the guideline I've mentioned. — ArćRèv • talk 15:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

If other editors see this discussion, they would see this an edit war. This doesn't look like a good conversation. Are you going to wait for a consensus or revert your changes once again, despite no other editor agreeing with you? Hotwiki (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Also may I add, you were warned with a "second level warning" for edit warring, since in the same hour, you were also warned for not assuming good faith which was a "first level warning". So basically two warnings under 1 hour. Hotwiki (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I will not go on to wait for consensus because I didn't ask for it in the first place; I have my guidelines. No one agrees with me because there are no other editors involved in our discussion. — ArćRèv • talk 16:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

This is written in the 2nd warning in your talk page "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." If you're not willing to wait for a consensus, then you will be reported for not complying with the rules. Hotwiki (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I discussed it with you first in your talk page, and you chose not to agree even though I provided guidelines. That's why I never seek consensus. — ArćRèv • talk 16:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules state, seek for a consensus when editors are involved in a content dispute. Your reluctance to follow this simple rule, wouldn't slide well, when you are reported to the administrators. Hotwiki (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Jackie Gonzaga, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Chetsford (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello TheArcRev! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Counter vandalism, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello please stop editing on page Ashley Sarmiento Article, Thanks! 2001:4453:5FE:6400:3CFC:A5E4:2ABD:3BE3 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Why? - Arćrèv1 • talk 00:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

you feel you know everything about that person, you should stop disruptive editing. I'm her representative and manager. 2001:4453:5FE:6400:3CFC:A5E4:2ABD:3BE3 (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to know everything about the subject — I'm simply following Wikipedia’s guidelines by referring to reliable sources. Not all information in the article came from me; I only added what's supported by verifiable references. Also, I am not the one being disruptive. I already warned about using unreliable sources, especially for the subject’s full name, but no reliable update was provided. - Arćrèv1 • talk 01:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello so I'm edited the birthplace of Ashley Sarmiento so she is born in Las Pinas City so I'd edited it hello po wala naman po masama dun sa pag-edit sa Wikipedia eh tama naman po talaga yung ginagawa ko po minsan eh inaalam ko talaga yung mga birthday nila at yung birthplace nila.. armiento RT021704 (talk) 00:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@RT021704: Hello, there's really nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia — it's open for everyone to contribute. However, we all must follow certain guidelines and policies to maintain the credibility and accuracy of articles, especially those about living people. One of Wikipedia’s core content policies is verifiability. This means that any information you add must be backed by reliable sources. If you added the birthplace based on your own knowledge or original research, then unfortunately it does not meet the standard for inclusion. Also, please remember that this is the English Wikipedia, so we encourage communication in English here. If you wish to contribute or communicate in Filipino, we suggest editing the Filipino Wikipedia instead. To help you contribute properly in the future, here is a useful link on how to cite sources: Wikipedia:Citing Sources. - Arćrèv1 • talk 02:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, regarding Mikee Quintos, the phrase "known professionally as" was likely changed to "known as" on Mikee Quintos to simplify the wording while maintaining clarity. The original phrasing is often used to distinguish a stage name from a birth name, but since "Mikee Quintos" is a shortened version of her full name, Mikaela Marie Javier Quintos, the change to "known as" may have been made for conciseness without altering the intended meaning. Glenn23-408649 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Glenn23-408649: I don’t think “Mikee” is a common short form of “Mikaela” — usually it would be “Mika,” not “Mikee.” Since “Mikee Quintos” is the name she’s credited under in her professional work, keeping “professionally known as” makes more sense. If we treat “Mikee” as just a nickname, then per MOS:HYPOCORISM, the whole sentence should be removed — but in this case, it’s clearly her professional/stage name, so the phrase should stay. - Arćrèv1 • talk 05:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm explaning that i am not related to user Matthew24kyle and ThatBeeSwarm2244, those accounts are not mine.

And i'm not doing a sockpuppetry because it's one of Wikipedia's violation, and i'm sorry, that inform me in my talk page, Thank You. Makingduo31 (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

@Makingduo31: You previously admitted on your user page that you were the same person behind the blocked accounts user:Matthew24kyle and user:ThatBeeSwarm2244. Even though you removed that statement after I notified you, it still remains visible in the page history and can be verified by anyone. Creating a new account to bypass a block is still considered block evasion and a violation of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY, regardless of which email or device you used. Instead of messaging me, I suggest you take the time to manage your blocked accounts properly by following the appropriate unblock request process—either through UTRS or by emailing the Arbitration Committee. - Arćrèv1 • talk 18:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to add the ones that Tito appeared because it was missing some information when he was credited. For example, Tito appeared in Super Wan-Tu-Tri as seen in Mr. One-Two-Three and then I Have 3 Eggs. The only problem before making a quick revert is that I was supposed to add citation needed and that's all I did. 103.3.81.123 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

@103.3.81.123: Using citation needed is helpful for flagging existing unsourced content, but it’s not a substitute for providing a source when adding new information. If a reliable source can’t be found, it’s better to leave the content out until one is available. - Arcrev1 (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Arcrev1, I want to ask your advice. I made several edits like adding an infobox awards to some Filipino celebrities but the other editor keeps removing it and find it unnecessary. I added infobox awards to have a consolidated list and patterned it with Hollywood actors awards page.

If two editors do not agree on the narrative or what to put on the articles either adding an infobox awards or not, can we settle it on the article talk page and get a consensus, am I right? Kindly advice, thanks! Fanblade81 (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Fanblade81: You're right. If there's disagreement between editors, the proper way to resolve it is by discussing it on the article’s talk page and seeking consensus. If you patterned the infobox awards after similar ones used on other actor pages, that's a valid approach. Explain your reasoning there, and others can join the discussion. Reaching consensus is the best way to move forward. I also didn’t expect you would raise this issue to me, since what I told you was that I was just trying to help you with referencing. Just to clarify, I’m not an experienced editor—I only contribute minor information and I’m still learning the guidelines. My main focus is reverting unconstructive edits. - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I know about adding references. Thanks for helping me out. It is very challenging using phone, than a laptop when creating articles or making edits - removing or adding information with added reference. I see many articles do not have references at all.

About disagreement, I want to ask what is the best course if two editors do not agree on the same thing either the narrative or a simple thing such as adding infobox awards or not.

Thank you for your help. Have a good day Fanblade81 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Keep up the good work. Destinyokhiria 💬 08:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much!😊 I didn’t expect it, but I really appreciate it. - Arcrev1 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Arcrev1, I updated birth name to Kimberly Domingo Mazon per KAMI.com.ph and Famous Birthdays, both of which confirm this full name. Edit aligns with WP:V and WP:BLP sourcing standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenn23-408649 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Glenn23-408649: When adding birthdates and birth names to biographical articles, don't forget to provide reliable sources. Also, note that Famous Birthdays is not a reliable source, as it is a user-generated website. - Arcrev1 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You left a vague message on my talk page saying some recent edits were not constructive... can you explain what it was you have a problem with, as that's not exactly helpful. Mauls (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Acrev1, I was replying in regards to this my edit summary, i left in my edit summary that this portion of the article was irrelevant to the factual basis of the article, and is advertisement from the primary source, which does not constitute a factual or documentarian portrayal. Papacosmo (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Papacosmo: Hi, thanks for the clarification. If your edit was beneficial and based on valid reasoning, then I probably made a mistake with my reversion — apologies for that. I may have missed your edit summary since I reverted quickly. No worries, feel free to disregard my revert if it was a mistake. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I see that editor Trancescriptor continues to remove references and content from articles like Victoria Kjær Theilvig. Even after several previous warnings for similar behaviour.BabbaQ (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I’ve already reverted it, but this is something you can still do yourself if needed in the future. I don’t see any indication yet to report the user at ANI. Giving a warning is sufficient for now. Thank you. - Arcrev1 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't removed any content; I've simply refined the text to improve clarity and flow. Many sections contained redundancies or were overly complex, so I streamlined those areas. Additionally, I replaced an existing reference with a link to a duplicate source. It might appear that I've deleted information, but in fact, I've added details like references to relevant laws. I put a lot of effort into enhancing the text, and I would appreciate it if you could review the changes to see if you still prefer the older version. Remember, longer texts don't always equate to more information. 2.67.51.78 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@2.67.51.78: If I made a mistake in reverting your version, feel free to disregard the warning and manually restore your edit—you have my permission. I might have misunderstood the situation because, at the time, I saw that you removed a source, and your edit summary didn’t clearly explain why. That’s why I reverted it. If I was wrong, please just ignore it. - Arcrev1 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The source is me. I'm Dan Navarro. I realize that a single source, especially the subject themselves, could be considered suspect, and I agree. In my own case, I am going to be very careful when I list historical stuff about myself to not embellish, spin or otherwise color the simple facts.

I have no intention of puffing up my history, my 40 years as a songwriter, 38 years as a voice actor, 35 years as a recording and touring artists, still active in all those fields. I don't need to.

But I look at the pages of my contemoporaries, and many of them have a vast amount of historical material, and I have always been curious, how does it get in, if not by themselves ar a rep of some kind.

So, whatever you decide to allow, is what you decide to allow. I would like to continue to make additions, if allowed.

thank you, 65.128.77.184 (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@65.128.77.184: While I appreciate your transparency and intent to be factual, Wikipedia discourages subjects from editing their own articles due to conflict of interest concerns. Even accurate information must be supported by reliable, independent sources—not personal accounts or self-published material (see WP:RS). If you'd like to suggest changes, the best way is to post them on the article's Talk page, clearly stating your connection. Other editors can then review and add them if they meet Wikipedia's standards. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi:

See the talk page of that article. 2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. @2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D: If you're seeking admin action, I’ve already submitted a request at ANI to determine what appropriate steps can be taken regarding the article. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. The talk page has content and s/he randomly threatens to not "seek consensus after reverted. Clearly a COI, but I cannot tell exactly how now (it now seems to be in india with that idiot).

maybe delete the article altogether since the histor shows his fathers article was.2A00:F3C:1234:0:2C0D:567D:6753:541D (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not think you understood, but I have been making hundreds of isotope edits, updating and cleaning up isotope pages. Sometimes this includes removal of content, that seems unnecessary or redundant, including references. Further, the edit you reverted contained improvements as well as removals, and I have reinstated it. I would appreciate it if you were more careful about reverting edits. (Please do not reply on my talk page.) 73.228.195.198 (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@73.228.195.198: I am careful when reverting edits. Did you even see my edit summary? You didn't provide an edit summary when you removed sourced content. If you don’t want people to misunderstand what you did, then at least provide a brief explanation in your edits so you won’t be bothered later on. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, you have made a mistake. J. Cole is a Southern hip hop artist, and as such, there has to be some material in his discography that is Southern hip hop. "95 South" is not an exception, as the entire song is "Southern" oriented. So please, you need to restore my edit immediately. 165.56.66.204 (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@165.56.66.204: The note said to provide a source for the genre. You didn’t provide any source. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Arcrev1,

Once a PROD tag has been removed, for any reason or no reason at all, it can not be replaced on the article. You are violating Wikipedia policy by doing this. Please stop and pursue deletion at WP:AFD if you are still seeking an article or file's deletion. There is an exception for BLP PRODs which can only have the tag removed once a reliable source has been added to the article.

If you have questions about the deletion processes on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Liz: Thank you for letting me know. I’m not sure what AFD or PROD you’re referring to, but maybe you meant this specific article, right? First of all, I apologize if I restored the template or any content from that article. The IP user who removed it didn’t provide any explanation in the edit summary, so I didn’t know why they removed it. I’m also sorry for not including an explanation in my own edit summary, it’s because the AntiVandal tool I’m using doesn’t have a fixed custom edit summary option I can use. That’s probably why I restored it, I was patrolling recent changes, as you know, just trying to help prevent any problems from slipping into Wikipedia. Then I saw that user remove that kind of content, and I honestly didn’t know whether the AFD issue was still ongoing or not. I meant no harm, and sincerely apologize. I’ll be more careful next time. Thank you for visiting my talk page. - Arcrev1 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz: After I saw it again and opened the template, I thought it was about an AFD discussion. I didn’t check right away that it was actually a different template. My fault. - Arcrev1 (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't speak well english, I was explaining in Italian why I think it's a hoax... 2.237.220.21 (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Arcrev1

Sorry that ive forgotten to add info about the evidence, I dont edit on wikipedia much so ill remember to do that for next time. On Spa Valley's website about their diesel gala, it says that it will be on display during that event: https://www.spavalleyrailway.co.uk/product.php/7453/diesel-gala And today it has been moved into the yard. Any info about how I can get it back onto the Class 12 info would be appreciated.

Thanks, @quick4000 Quick4000 (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Quick4000: Hello, thank you for following the rules. If you want to include a source but don't know how to add one yet, this link, WP:RS / WP:CS, can help you. If you want to restore your version, there's an "undo" button on the diff pages, or you can go to the page history and click it there. Happy editing! - Arcrev1 (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1 👋🏻, I've recently joined Wikipedia to contribute and I'm trying to create a page. However, I don't see the 'Create Page' option. I found an existing page Fish Venkat and created a redirect Draft:Mangalampalli Venkatesh. Could you please help me move it to the main space or delete the draft and create a redirect page? I'd appreciate your assistance. Thank you. F126 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@F126:  Done - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks 👍🏻 F126 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

For redirects like this, you can just search for the redirect title that doesn't exist yet, and you'll automatically be taken to the page creation. You don't need a draft. Drafts are for non-existing articles that are open for everyone to contribute to before being moved to the mainspace. - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it! So, for redirects, I can simply search for the title and create the page. I'll proceed with that. Thanks again for the guidance F126 (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@F126: Yes, but of course, you need to follow the policy and guidelines. What I’m referring to is creating a redirect - (see WP:REDIRECTS) - which is different from creating an article. However, if you’re going to create a redirect that has no actual relevance to the main article, then there’s no reason to make it. - Arcrev1 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it.

Thanks Arcrev1. F126 (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1,

User : BIMA FF1

Trying to harm wiki page Undefined it's locked I can't revert the changes he did.

Kindly review it. F126 (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/BIMA_FF1&target=BIMA+FF1&offset=&limit=500 F126 (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@F126: Slr. The user has been blocked, and the article is now under Pending Changes protection. This means that all edits made by non-autoconfirmed and unregistered users will be flagged as pending and must be reviewed and approved by reviewers before becoming visible to the public. Therefore, there's no need to worry. If you encounter further instances of vandalism, you may take appropriate action using WP:TWINKLE, a gadget on Wikipedia designed for anti-vandalism and maintenance tasks. Please refer to the documentation at WP:TWINKLE for more information. Thank you. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it.

Thanks F126 (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi - there was a rather tangled knot of self reverts from an IP editor but the last stable version was that without the reference. Hope this clears up any confusion - thanks. Epsilon.Prota ^talk 08:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Epsilon.Prota: Alright. Thanks for letting me know. - Arcrev1 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If I have information through published articles on the Thailand Men's Handball Team, how would I add this? 151.229.252.124 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@151.229.252.124: Hello. Read WP:Citing Sources. - Arcrev1 (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making me more aware of WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I'm sorry for doing the reverts; I acknowledge that I based my perception of what a filmography table should look like based on only a limited sampling of GA's and FA's (because I aim the article to be a GA and FA soon as stated on my user page) and not actual WP(colon) guidelines. I went on a semi-hiatus from my article project to focus on an examination, and I plan to resume again within the next few fays. Once again, sorry and thank you. ;) Ramkarlo82 (V • T • C) 17:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ramkarlo82: It's okay. Happy editing! - Arcrev1 (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Viy Cortez. Thanks! AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 03:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Viy Cortez, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

ROY is WAR Talk! 01:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Lost a £100 bet to my online friends, and they told me to distort my hometown's wiki page if I didn't want to pay them(it sounds ridiculous but it's true), I was planning to revert everything within today, you beat me to it. Darkify815 (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ashley Rivera (actress), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Agent 007 (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Arcrev1, I'm requesting you undo the rollback of my edits to the page on the ThinkLight so I can continue to improve it by adding details and citations. The original page before my edits had very few citations, was out of date and was either missing details or had inaccuracies. I'm still in the process of adding additional information and would like to not start over. Cheers! Laptop Retrospective (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Arcrev1 (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much @Arcrev1, I'm still new to Wikipedia but I've come to appreciate reviewers and editors that circle back on things. I really appreciate you! Laptop Retrospective (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1, I just wanted to let you know that I have restored two good-faith edits [4] [5] by User:NonX231 that you reverted as "unexplained changes" [6] You also left the user a warning for not using an edit summary, even though they did both times. The edits in question made sense, as switching between first name and last name mid-paragraph was confusing and unnecessary. I assume this was just a mistake, but of course please be careful to not accidentally revert good-faith edits when using anti-vandalism tools. Thanks! I₂Overcome ^talk 06:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@I2Overcome: I intentionally reverted the edit, though I did not view it as bad faith. The edit summary provided did not meet the standards for clarity and objectivity, unlike yours, which was properly explained. A proper edit summary should state what was changed and why, aiding reviewers and future editors. In this case, ("who keeps using first and last name? just makes it confusing"... "changed bright to kathryn, it bugged me") the summary reflected personal opinion, lacked specific context, and used a conversational rather than factual tone. While the edit was in good faith, the summary was an improper use of the field. The warning issued was a standard template to remind the editor to provide clear, descriptive summaries. If my approach (to revert) was inappropriate, I apologize. - Arcrev1 (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

No big deal. I like to check and see if I can understand the rationale before reverting an edit that isn’t properly explained. New editors often don’t use edit summaries or don’t explain their edits clearly. According to the policy, "editors should not revert an otherwise good edit because of a missing or confusing edit summary". If I can determine that the edit is constructive, I leave it. I₂Overcome ^talk 19:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/rockcandymag/posts/classic-rock-magazine-50-greatest-drummers-in-rock-june-2005drummer-then-in-squa/1429385780595969/

Below, inside, is the newspaper page itself.

https://www.a-4-d.com/t4143-2005-06-dd-classic-rock-magazine-guest-editors-velvet-revolver — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.231.14 (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1,

Maybe you can see if you can find an online version of the The Tale of Hōgen and let 31.205.18.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) know how to cite it. That would be a great outcome for all involved - happy to help.

Pete in オーストラリア aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Shirt58: I have no particular interest in that article. I was simply patrolling the recent changes page when I noticed that an IP user had added information, claiming it was supported by a reliable source. However, the source in question is non-Latin, non-English, and provides no URL, which means there is essentially no access to it, and even if there were, verification would be quite difficult. Furthermore, there was no clear indication that the source cited was a book. Nevertheless, since such references are deemed acceptable, there is no further need for discussion regarding the warning or WP:ANI. With regard to your question about an online version, as I mentioned, I am not a contributor to that article and therefore have no knowledge of its content; others are in a better position to address that matter. I believe the IP user is more knowledgeable than I am, as he is aware of the guidelines stating that books, as well as non-Latin and non-English sources, may be considered reliable. Thank you, and I apologize if I have caused any inconvenience. - Arcrev1 (talk) 08:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The edits on HBO Max sub-sections are merely for clarity instead of introducing new facts and can already be gleaned from the pre-existing inline-citations on the page. – 152.59.182.59 (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@152.59.182.59: Hello, regarding this diff 1 and 2, are these included in the clarity you mentioned? Based on your edit summary, this is additional information. Please clarify, thank you. - Arcrev1 (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I hope that my second entry sufficiently answers your questions reasonably. Only one thing I can possibly clarify is that clearer citation is already existent on the wiki-hyperlinked entries, too. And for the purposes of reducing the clutter, I simply didn't copy paste them given they are used on HBO Max entry for a far more fleeting statement than the ones they currently exist on. – 152.59.182.59 (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

The JioCinema edit is merely in line with other articles of the category in that region on this site and since included details are not contradicted but simply not deemed newsworthy enough to be covered by WP:RS, as usual, so I applied WP:IAR since citing a message board discussion where such developments tend to be diligently covered is somehow worse as it has appeared in my observation than making deductions based on inline citations and even nothing other than an explanatory note at best ("original research"). But whatever, man. If you've got problems with my great-faith edits — I have long lost hope in this godforsaken site. Sorry for wasting my time. –152.59.182.59 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Edited 10:37, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@152.59.182.59: Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the presence of similar content in other articles does not justify its direct replication in another. My inquiry is simply whether the material added constitutes genuinely new information. Based on your explanation, it appears the content may have been duplicated from elsewhere, even if not explicitly stated. This approach is not consistent with policy, as edits must be article-specific and supported by reliable sources. I will review the edit, and if no issues are identified, no further warnings or reverts will follow. Thank you. - Arcrev1 (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

After reviewing, the reverted information was not explicitly stated in the source. In this reverted edit, it is purely original research. - Arcrev1 (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I brought up IAR since OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is far too pervasive on this site for so-called Global South centric articles, including in this category. And yes, the edit you chose to highlight is obviously OR since I already told you so and can be verified from third party only through SPS per the norms of determining newsworthiness in those regions, but citing them is even more frowned upon here than citing nothing at all, that's why I simply did what some other editors do by tucking it away as "explanatory note" but I deemed it important it enough to not try hiding it away. I hope that clears up everything to your satisfaction as I expect this to be the final response from my end. –152.59.182.59 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ‪Strongwranglers‬. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Chicken burger have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Strongwranglers (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Strongwranglers: I understand your concern, but my edit was made in good faith and was simply a mistake since I did not notice the citation had already been added earlier. It was not an act of vandalism. In the future, please consider addressing such issues with a clarification rather than a vandalism warning, as that would help maintain constructive collaboration. Also, the diff you cited as proof refers to another editor's contribution, not mine. - Arcrev1 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Arcrev1. No problem. WP:CIVIL WP:VOLUNTEER :) Strongwranglers (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

hi Aj227184 (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2025 (UTC)