User talk:FlightTime/Archive 33

The following page is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Hi @FlightTime:, did you mean to post the Marvel Comics content dispute on the general Help Desk page, or were you intending to post it at ANI? Orville1974 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Orville1974: I just wanted to point out the edit request to whomever handled the help request. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: I'm guilty of WP:TLDR, I see that part now in the wall of text. :) Orville1974 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Orville1974: Not a problem. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 19:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye for the user? S/he keep adding non-stop with false label. 2402:1980:8255:4042:EF9D:74BE:75D9:6589 (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on this FT!! I'm sure someone will be along in due time to present you with the 100,000 edit award but until then please accept my thanks for all that you've done here at the 'pedia and best wishes on the next hundred thou! MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: Thanx MD, you're always so kind. Have a great day :) - FlightTime (open channel) 17:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FT I'm trying my best :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question with regards to your recent edit. Mohamed Morsi has died just one or two days ago (depending on your timezone) on 2019-06-17. Is this not considered recent for marking the page with {{Recent death}}? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrybak: It's not about a time limit, the template is used to notify editors and readers of rapid changing edits, on the on set of a new death, once the activity levels have leveled off the template is removed. The edit summary I use mostly is "Activity levels no longer warrant use. This template is used to alert editors of rapid changing edits, it is not used to advertise or confirm the death itself" You can review the guideline here: Template:Recent death/doc - FlightTime (open channel) 00:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Orville1974: I just had to let you know I was very impressed with how you worded and handled this situation. Good work. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ~blush~ Orville1974 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Hello, I'm trying to edit the page for Tribeca Grill. I work for the owner, in the PR & Marketing department. All the information we are adding is verified and true, WE ARE THE SOURCE of it. The information currently stated on the page is either old or wrong... How can we add this information? I am pretty sure we are complying with the guidelines ;) Thanks! MyRG (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) @FlightTime: Just left another message about trying to edit our Tribeca Grill profile page, not sure if this goes to a different inbox. All the information we are supplying is verified, we are the source, I work for the owner at the PR department. Please let me know how I can improve this information (you stated it was not constructive, but all we did was update chef names and add some historical facts). Thanks! MyRG (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MyRG: I have left some information on your talk page about dealing with a conflict of interest, please review, heed and follow the directions. Please stop editing the page yourself as it will lead to block of your account. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that the statement that someone was chief of a country's military forces was not an indication of importance/significance. What were you thinking of when you tagged this for speedy deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has no references. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And references have nothing to do with WP:A7. Please read it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Have a nice day. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What is considered appropriate source information to add info about film availability? Link to a published web page review? Scans of the article itself? I know for a fact that CINDERELLA III is included with recent issues of Disney's CINDERELLA BluRay DVD as I own the BluRay (legally purchased from either Walmart or Amazon, I forget which) and CINDERELLA III is included within. It may well be included with tomorrows' release of CINDERELLA DVD by Disney. However, per your request, I will no longer attempt to contribute to film pages on WIKIPEDIA. Mattheviewer (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattheviewer: This has nothing to do with sources. You work in the film industry ( by you own admission) so you should not be editing articles dealing with films, regardless of your sources. As I stated on your talk page, please review the COI notice left on your talk page over a year ago. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	100,000th edit award
	Let me be the first (again) to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Cheers, — MarnetteD|Talk 01:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be the sweetest editor on the project. Thank you very much :) - FlightTime (open channel) 01:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your work deserves to be recognized FT!! Thank you for the kind words - they are much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what is the best way to initate this changes? How do I properly express my employment at Quantum in order to follow Wiki's best practices? Picard091488 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Picard091488 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard091488: First of all I don't need all that other info, just follow the instructions and review the links I left on your talk page. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you asked ... I was in the process of doing it when your message came through. Daniel Case (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Lol. I was just coming to welcome you back and I was scrolling for a "minute" :P Again, Welcome back :) - FlightTime (open channel) 16:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For the page Seventh generation of video game consoles, you reverted back to an earlier version, undoing edits from me and another user. Was removing my edits intended, and if so, what was the issue with them? My addition to the talk page explains why I think the changes were needed. Thank you.

71.191.0.15 (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on articles including Born to Be Yours, Bad Liar (Imagine Dragons song), Zero (Imagine Dragons song) and other Imagine Dragons songs articles. Make sure if who makes unsourced genre change. 2402:1980:8242:B33A:923:3FB3:FAC:E741 (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Jones (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Hi FlightTime! I'm Rolling Stones fan, i have much knowledge about the band, including line-ups, tours, and much more. I'm working for better infos on Wikipedia about Stones and much more other classic rock bands. Thank you! :)[reply]

Personal knowledge is not verifiable, either by an editor or one of our readers and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an expert. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my edit in this article reversed, and then hit with a ban threat? My caption was reflecting the information provided in the article. When this is the case, there isn't a need to provide a source (this can be seen in many Good and Featured Articles). Without a more informative caption, especially on a copyrighted image, the image might as well be deleted because it doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the article. 76.80.178.5 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Christgau's "review" of the Boston album because it is not a real review and not worth anyone's time or concern.

Thanks! 2600:1702:570:2B40:D8B:4AA7:8340:8430 (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime:

I have made the contributions on the Quantum Talk page per your suggestion. Can you help me make these edits? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_Corporation&action=submit

Picard091488 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Picard091488: I responded here Talk:Quantum Corporation#Proposing Updates to Intro Paragraph - FlightTime (open channel) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I've removed the COI template on the Sally Ride article. While I appreciate what I suspect motivated you to add the template, it's a pretty specific template that indicates a major contributor has a close connection. Someone who's made 5 of the 2380 edits with an aggregate 8 out of 42,000 bytes (i.e., roughly the same level of contribution as you have) isn't a major editor.

I'm hoping you can help me to sort out the "engineer" bit on a bunch of articles. The assertion that Ride is an engineer was added by a user named Engfixed (contribs [1]) whose edits seem to all be adding unsourced statements that various people were engineers. I have my doubts about most of them, and I'm going to work to clean them up, but it would be great if someone else would pitch in. Risker (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: Yes, I saw that you did right after you did it, - FlightTime (open channel) 01:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FlightTime. I've gone through Engfixed's list and, while most of the article subjects graduated with some kind of engineering degree, many of them never actually worked in the field. I'm inclined to remove the word "engineer" from the lead sentence of those articles, at least. Any thoughts? Risker (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, really haven't looked at them. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no evidence that Sally Ride ever acted as an engineer. I haven't looked through the rest of the list, but I think removing all of Engfixed's additions unless a citation was added would be prudent. Risker is that something you'd want to take care of?

It is worth keeping in mind that though someone have a direct connection to article's subject, that doesn't inherently mean their edits would harm the neutral point of view of the article. Removing an uncited statement that is known (to them) to be factually incorrect is in line with Wikipedia's policies. Prodego ^talk 02:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime. Even though I know you're quite busy most days, if you can, could you help keep an eye on the editor Billiekhalidfan? Asking as you've previously warned them several times. Honestly most of their edits are still unexplained and contentious from the outset and moreso their ideas of what things should be rather than what they are. If you get time, it'd be appreciated anyway. Thanks. Ss112 07:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: I have been keeping an eye on this user, They definitely want things their way, however I am heeding Ad Orientem "new user" suggestions. They will either conform to a productive community member or hang themselves in the long run. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime they're just going to continue to screw up articles though. I have no patience for newbies who want to fire back with the snark of an editor who's been here for years. My patience with them has run out as of several minutes ago. Ss112 23:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You really liked my edits?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure why not :P - FlightTime (open channel) 03:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some other editors sometimes hating mine, even accusing me of vandalism.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that one wasn't :) - FlightTime (open channel) 03:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on SHIELD, I thought it would be better by putting the fictional organization's logo instead of the character Nick Fury's picture, because it would represent it overall.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for wanting to help. I'm not so adept with formatting, citing references, etc., yet. I had a user account "baalShemRa" but this is a new machine and I can't remember my old login. ( only 54, so I hope not senile yet!)

This was definitely Not "original research." My source, which I did not cite, is the book, The Lord of the Rings, Only The Book, and Nothing But The Book, which is also the subject of the Article. (Not the Film or the Game or my own imagination.)

I simply noticed that it nowhere said, "The ring, by the way, makes you invisible, which was its apparent value to Bilbo, Frodo, et al, before Gandalf discovers its deeper significance. (Deeper than what? Deeper than being simply an invisibility ring.)" cf The Hobbit, ch. V, "Riddles in the Dark" for the invisibility, LOTR, Vol I, Ch. 2, "The Shadow of the Past" for the "more than."

The article mentions Nazgul, then Black Riders, but doesn't make clear -- to a complete novice -- that these are the same and they are also called Ringwraiths. These are indeed the "nine mortal Men Doomed to die" from the Ring Poem, but I left that out because this would not fit into the middle of a sentence.

My use of "hell-like" is questionable, or at any rate could be questioned, but I could find a thousand -- well, a hundred sources that assert that Mordor resembles "Hell" without espousing any particular theology since many mythologies, including the pagan Norse and actually all others I can think of have a realm of flame and pain and punishment, which Mordor does indeed resemble. There's "original research" and then there's "this is a no-brainer."

Or am I losing "neutral POV"?

Thank you for your help. I maybe should have addressed the Talk page, but, you know, Inspiration.

Is there anything else? You seem like a real person and not a bot. Thank you again for your time, effort and attention.

<{: )}>

BaalShemRa. 2601:643:8400:F781:74DD:641B:95DE:2C32 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Why did you revert my edit on the page Don't Matter to Me? I was actually reverting vandalism and by reverting my edit the vandalism is back again. Nielshoogvliet (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, didn't read your summary. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Nielshoogvliet (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla, Martinevans123, and Huon:I've been yelled at for making comments on unblock request so I'm making it here. I was A'ing GF and helped him placed the {{admin help}} request, however i do remember the immense disruption this user caused before his block, I know you guys know what you're doing, but I just had a need to post my opinion, I would think thrice (which I can see you're already doing) before considering unblocking this user, I'm not convinced about his claim of a turnaround. Thank for listening. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you seem to have been acting in perfectly good faith in trying to help Hillbilly. Re your edit two years ago, was that for the YouTube video link itself or for the copy of the lyrics? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Martinevans123: Based on a quick review, I'd would say most certainly due to "lyrics" which are most certainly always a copyvio. And again thank you for listening :) - FlightTime (open channel) 16:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I'm certainly happy to "cease and desist". But it's difficult when other (Admin) editors, who have already plainly said they have "no more to say" suddenly reappear and start asking direct questions? One doesn't wish to appear deliberately ignorant? One also feels obliged to try and give a voice to the voiceless, if only out of common decency. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[2] Why not? SolarFlash (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SolarFlash: Because he's Best know (as the article states) the guitarist for Poison and Poison is a rock band. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he's the bass guitarist in Poison, and the Poison article lists them as a heavy metal band, with multiple reliable sources to confirm it. There's no reason for my edit to not stand. SolarFlash (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead list them as Rock, which in this instance, what we should follow, the infobox could list multiple genres and we don't pick our preferred genre. So you're going to edit war over this, isn't the correct way to do this is for you to (burden) open a discussion on the talk ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehtalkitty (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flight Time! I received a message from you in regards to my edit on the Glen Helen Amphitheater. I was trying to upload a recent picture of the venue from 2 days ago. My apologies if I did it wrong. I am having trouble figuring out how to start a discussion on it so that it can possibly be uploaded. Your help is appreciated.

Thank you, Mehtalkitty

Replied on your talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what needs to take place for the consensus to take place?

Picard091488 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I made to Matt Heafy's page was clearly not a test as I clearly stated why the edit was made. The link is incorrect and needs to be removed. Brayness286 (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you undid my revision on the page for Anthony Kiedis on the number of sexual partners. My edit was undoing vandalism originally done by 207.229.147.253. If you check the source, you'll see it says 100 rather than 3. 205.178.79.111 (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it - FlightTime (open channel) 01:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source was already on the article. Repeating here https://web.archive.org/web/20160630074432/http://www.alternativenation.net/red-hot-chili-peppers-anthony-kiedis-sex-hundreds-women/. As I said, I was only reverting a previous edit by the above IP that changed it to 3. I just verified that it was indeed wrong by following the link on the page.

I'm also unclear on the reason for an additional warning on blanking pages that you gave. (205.178.79.111) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that immediately after posting the above, you reverted the edit again and warned me for vandalism. I should have included the reason on my original edit, but I did on the most recent even if you missed the above. At this point, I'm rather lost on how to get you to look at the source. It's above on this page and linked to on the paragraph of the original article. (205.178.79.111) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B003:1B68:C4BD:6D74:A04C:994E (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason for reverting my edit? Your explanation of per WP is confusing.

See revision here Shushugah (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shushugah: My reason is in the next summary, I reverted your change per WP:NOTBROKEN. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 09:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I was editing the redirect pages themselves, because they initially redirected to generic NYC Department of Education pages. All good. I made new minor edit, correcting the possessive apostrophe. Have a nice day :) Shushugah (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NP - FlightTime (open channel) 09:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have updated some content on Nathalie Hart Page but i my changings got reverted.Please guide how can i make her page updated with latest information.I want to change career and personal info on her page.Also i tried changing the old two images but got reverted.Please help @FlightTime:

Ma2081992 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma2081992: Read your talk page messages. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have latest information for her page and i want to update it.Please guide how can i made those changings on her page

Career information :

Nathalie hart started working with star cinema with 3 films since 2017 and Started working for viva films last 2018. She has set to make 8 more movies for the company Viva films.

Personal Information :

Nathalie hart was born in the Philippines. She is based in two cities which is Sydney and Manila. She has studied business management. Jewellery designing and a beauty course. Nathalie’s family is based in Australia. She has broken the news when she posted a picture of her daughter from An Indian partner. Nathalie postpone the wedding. She’s focusing on her films for 2019.

Ma2081992 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to open a discussion on the article talk page, not here. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 13:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTalk - just wondering if you can provide additional help about how to make those proposed changes to the Quantum Corporation page? I know you said it needed WP consensus...but I'm unsure as to what to do in the meantime? how to i make this happen? Picard091488 (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

180.150.52.152 (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC) i was very justified to post on endevour space shuttrel tahtsnk vey macuyh[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude, but The Three Caballeros and So Dear to My Heart premiered in 1944 and 1948 respectfully, not 1945 and 1949 (the former being the U.S. release of The Three Caballeros and the latter being the general release of So Dear to My Heart). Also, I got the information from the website A. Film L.A. (a website that has animation drafts for Disney films and shorts). 2605:E000:121D:8BF5:5D6A:243D:7031:414C (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reference your "proof" with your changes, see Help:Referencing for beginners - FlightTime (open channel) 02:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you made an error as my entry IS already cited and I am correcting the wrong original entry. In short, the person who entered the 1974 year under Charles Manson was wrong as they are lifting the 1974 copyright date of the book Helter Skelter, but not the July 1961 date that the page itself cites. Please take a look at this link and see it for yourself.

Iamsnag12 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamsnag12: Then please explain your edits using edit summary field, cuts down on instances like this. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Self reverted, sorry my error. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: I'm the user you challenged over the edit to C'mon, C'mon, about Stevie Nicks with You're Not the One. In terms of sources, there is this, which is from Sheryl Crow's official youtube channel (I know it says Light in Your Eyes. You're Not the One was a b-side to that song as well as a bonus track on the Japanese edition of C'mon C'mon) and it lists Stevie Nicks as a performer in the video description, which was "Provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group". But since it's a youtube video, I'm pretty sure it can't count as a credible source. Is there a way to find the song credits on an official website or something? Thanks! 90.207.10.60 (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can try allmusic.com or rollingstone.com these sites are considered reliable, you can also open a discussion on that article's talk page and get the opinions of editors who watch that page. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CrenshawSlobKilla (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC) Why the heck did you remove the names of the gangs in the movie "Colors" when there are scenes in the movie that is used as proof?[reply]

@CrenshawSlobKilla: You need to open a discussion on the talk page and see how the editors who actively watch that page and see if they agree to include those names/links, see consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've gone on quite a spree reverting edits that are supported by cited sources. Care to explain?gentlecollapse6 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentlecollapse6: Can you use edit summaries to say, oh IDK something like "Replacing sourced genre" as you claim to be doing ? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could have asked me to do this in a talk page message, rather than mindlessly reverted sourced material? Is that your idea of constructive editing? gentlecollapse6 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Gentlecollapse6: Don't be silly, I'm not going to ask every editor "Are you sure you want to do that". Just go on and I'll let another editor fix the pages. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit introduces a source or a multiple citations, I have no idea why you would preemptively assume my edits are not justified.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the main body of the article that the song "Mr Brownstone" was written by Slash and Izzy Spradlin on the back of a paper bag. Therefore, Guns 'N' Roses (a band that includes also William Axl Rose) could not have written it, which conflicts with the credit section. It's not a matter of sourcing, it's a matter of logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.245.196 (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then start using edit summaries and let others know what you're doing. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I made the edit, wrote the edit summary, and you reverted it, saying one more time and you'll block me from editing. I DID WHAT YOU SAID TO DO! --75.119.245.196 (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FlightTime: I am leaving a message here as per your link & message on my talk page. Thank you for your advice regarding Reference formatting. I did edit (added one line) on Joseph Merrick page regarding his legacy in contemporary culture - namely an important painting by a contemporary artist. I corrected it a couple of times but it has been deleted again despite it meeting the formatting standards. Can you let me know why? I am a relatively new user interested in arts, culture, politics, history and collecting. The line was a factual reference to his depiction in contemporary visual art. Thanks, Collecting Culture (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Collecting Culture (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say that several messages on my pages were left threatening to block me from editing. I'd like to say at first that it's not fair in any way to threaten people like this. Secondly I'd like to say that I deleted the part where she claimed to be bisexual as I felt like this information didn't deserve its place in the personal life section but in the controversy section since she made the comments in public. Her lying about her sexuality has little to do with her personal life.

With these types of threats, it actually frighten new young editors like me from editing. Do not act surprised if everyone stops joining Wikipedia to edit at this point.

secondly, I'd like to address the Madonna genre situation. Again, to start, I would like to state and point out that there was no actual need to threaten me with blocking. For your information, I had an actual conversation with another editor in the edits summary (you would've known if you had checked) about the genres of Madonna, the other editor had taken few of my edits, then I added disco as one of her genres but took it off as it was a subgenre of dance music which was already included in the article so I reverted my edit to rock music. I didn't do any disruptive editing. That's where you're wrong. And I DO take it as a personal offense as you changed ALL of my edits.

At this point with the fear of being BLOCKED for no reasons, I must say that I like or well liked editing and find no more reasons to keep it going.

Iambacknimbetter (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yours truly.

@FlightTime:

Hi,

This is regarding your recent reversion of my edits on Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks.

I assumed that because I was simply putting the existing information into a clearer format that it would be allowed without asking people? Was I wrong in that regard? What should I do in the case of posting in the talk page and receiving no response? This is what has happened the previous times I have used talk pages.

I'm a relatively new wikipedian so I would appreciate it if you can help me out here - this website does get quite confusing!

QuadColour (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to read, I left an explanation with my latest edits regarding Lamborghini. If you care about the truth, which I assume Wikipedia editors do, you will check the records in US District Court for the District of Virginia. The portion regarding licensing between Lamborghini and "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica" is decidedly not true if you care to do the research you will clearly find that to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjnowak (talk • contribs) 12:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickjnowak: Sorry, this is an Encyclopedia, we don't take people's word for what they think is wrong or correct, please provide a reliable third party source to support your claim. Everything must be verifiable. Personal knowledge is not verifiable, either by an editor or one of our readers and therefore not acceptable, even if you're an expert, and please sign your posts. - FlightTime (open channel) 12:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FlightTime,

Another administrator revoked talk page access. Is this IP trying to create an "Elvis Lives!" meme for poor Eddie Money? Pretty bizarre. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: IDK :P, but thanks for yor trouble and response. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like an explanation for exactly why you put that threatening message on my talk page accusing me of 'harassing' another user. It's a pretty serious accusation, and completely untrue. Reverting the previous message I left here with the rather cryptic comment 'fine' isn't really a sufficient explanation for such a serious charge. Dharmabumstead (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Why? At least have the common courtesy to explain why in an edit summary. 216.163.247.3 (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "confusing", if you have issues, take it to the talk page. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP, if you are ever going to make a case for this, you will have to cite secondary sources, it's as simple as that. If they haven't picked up on what you claim is there, we shouldn't--that is not what we do. FlightTime, "conflict of interest" isn't very appropriate here. The requirement for secondary sourcing is enough. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Noted for future reference. However, above I source a video of Ivy saying they are a blues band, and an excerpt from their personal retrospective essay talking about how they strived to be interpreted as a band paying tribute to Bo Diddley and Howlin' Wolf. Previously when I have made this change as well, I sourced a radio interview from '84 and text-based interview from 1998 supporting this. How many sources should I provide in this case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.196.145 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FlightTime (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just for the record, I reverted the other user 3 btimes, then after the user got blocked, I returned to article to status quo. which I thought was OK - FlightTime (open channel) 01:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining this per Kevin's explanation below. Edit warring is not okay, even when the other party gets blocked for it first. – bradv🍁 05:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The trouble that I'm facing with this unblock request is that it doesn't really give me confidence that you know why we don't allow edit-warring. Our edit-warring policies aren't a tool for winning arguments without discussion, or for getting opponents blocked, or even for maintaining the status quo; they exist because we prefer discussion to disruptive chains of reverts. The timeline in this case is concerning and honestly in combination with the block log here easily warranted a longer block. This user makes an edit to the lede with an edit summary linking to the MOS, and you revert without summary. The user posts on your talk page and reinstates their own edit, and you revert both the article edit and the talk page comment, both without explanation. The user writes another post on your talk page, distinct from the first, and reinstates their own edit; you revert both, again without explanation. The user then breaches 3RR in reverting on the article with edit summary. Up to this point, I count six times that the user has explained themselves and asked for discussion, including two talk page posts; you engaged with none of them, reverting both the edits and the talk page posts without explanation. In fact, your first post anywhere about this was AN3, where you got the user blocked for 3RR violations – and then you promptly violated 3RR yourself on the same article. All this happened in the span of less than one hour.

If this had been a case where you'd been both engaging in discussion over a longer period of time, and you'd accidentally crossed 3RR, I'd have unblocked you already. (I wouldn't have blocked in the first place, actually.) If this unblock request had been "I made a mistake; I won't edit war in the future, and I'll refrain from editing John Leguizamo for 24 hours", I'd have granted it already. But saying that you thought what you did there was "OK" gives me some pause. I'm the blocking admin, so of course I will leave this for someone else to review. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Surprised to see you blocked, to the extent that I was actually assuming L235 was being mistaken or heavy-handed. But I'm more surprised to see that it was for this. First of all, the user was explaining themselves, and they were absolutely in the right that they were simply complying with WP:Ethnicity. You, on the other hand, gave no reasoning whatsoever for your reversions. Second of all, you say you were merely restoring the status-quo, which isn't even true. "Columbian-born" was literally only added one minute earlier, Apoorva lyer correctly caught and reverted it as inappropriate with a thorough explanation in every edit summary. They even came here to explain their edits,[3][4] which you reverted with no explanation. Thirdly, I know that you know that "restoring the status quo" isn't a reason to revert anyway. The concept doesn't even exist on Wikipedia, formally or informally. I'm very confused by all this. I see you appeared to be recent changes patrolling at the time, and I get how you can jump to a mistaken conclusion that somebody is a disruptive editor; we all make mistakes. But why ignore their completely reasonable attempts to explain and communicate, why edit war with them, why delete their messages? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I just noticed that you referred the user to WP:BURDEN, which is the policy that says that the user who adds the content automatically has the responsibility for demonstrating said content's verifiability. The user was not adding any content, so it didn't apply to them at all. There was nothing about their edit that had anything remotely to do with verifiability policy whatsoever. What the hell is going on? I'm suspicious that your account is compromised because this makes no sense. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also concerning here is your behavior above. You deleted Oshwah message before replying to it, which by itself is strange, and then falsely claimed that you did not even do what he said you did, in spite of the fact that he included diffs in his original post, which you deleted. Not trying to give you a hard time, but just want to make sure everything is okay. You're a good user, but when these situations arise, we're not mind readers and can't tell whether a user's compromised, distracted, tired, over-caffeinated, drunk, stoned, on medication, being malicious, inexplicably going off the rails, or if everything is just a misunderstanding. All we can really do is indef block until the situation gets resolved. I won't modify your current block if there are no more apparent issues, and this can go down in the logs as a procedural edit warring block, but in doing so I'm going against my better judgment. Please be more careful in the future, and feel free to email me if you want. Best, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: look a little closer, I did not remove or restore anything on that page. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did I see things incorrectly on that page? If I did, please accept my apologies for incorrectly reading it, and please excuse my boneheaded-ness. I'm taking another look at the user talk page now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, it shows that the IP user removed content from it, and that you reverted that edit and warned them for it afterwards. What am I missing or seeing incorrectly? Where at? Again, please accept my apologies if I'm missing something and not seeing something that's relevant and that clearly explains the situation and what happened... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.