| Revision as of 02:31, 12 June 2021 editGrandpallama (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,953 edits Undid revision 1028133487 by Payatagsjeusysh (talk)Tag: Undo← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:54, 12 June 2021 edit undoPayatagsjeusysh (talk | contribs)47 editsNo edit summaryTags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Possible vandalismNext edit → | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
| If you have any additional comments or evidence to add, (since you are more familiar with this likely sock than I am), I made a report ]. ] (]) 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | If you have any additional comments or evidence to add, (since you are more familiar with this likely sock than I am), I made a report ]. ] (]) 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| :Thanks. They're a well-known nuisance, minimal evidence required. :) ] (]) 02:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | :Thanks. They're a well-known nuisance, minimal evidence required. :) ] (]) 02:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| You are a slut ] (]) 02:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:54, 12 June 2021
 Archives | |||
|
|||
Dave
Sorry about that: I was trying to make the definition clearer but I absolutely see your point. TashTish (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- TashTish, no worries. Happy editing! Grandpallama (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Edits on Jerry Maguire
Grandpalla you reverted my edits on the film Jerry Maguire. The actor I added gets royalty payments from this film. Fred3337 Fred3337 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- No one by that name is credited in the film, and certainly not the Scottish theologian you have now twice linked to. Grandpallama (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Nothing posted was incorrect, and I have documentation,royalty checks listing the film. I can’t speak to the reason why the film did not list the credit. What are the rules regarding film credits. If the information can be documented that SAG member was in the film, what else is required by wikipedia.Fred3337 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- Please read WP:V and WP:RS and direct any further discussion to the article's talkpage. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
user:Gingersnap Jr.thefourth
Thanks for the SPI on that user. IT was a new one for me so I didn't recognize the behaviour. Meters (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Meters, no problem. I forget where/when I first stumbled upon them, but they're easy to identify once you've encountered them. Grandpallama (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added it to my list of SPIs so I'll recognize it next time. Meters (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Meters, ha! "Films and user page stupidity" pretty much sums it up. :) Grandpallama (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Added it to my list of SPIs so I'll recognize it next time. Meters (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
Your recent editing history at Nocturnal Animals 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. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- No, Sundayclose, edit warring is you ignoring the WP:BRD process so that you can push through preferred edits despite opposition from other editors. Dropping a template on my page is not a good look when you are the one who needs to gain consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Edit warring can exist regardless of whether an edit is right or wrong (as long as it's not vandalism). You are edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sundayclose, I think you need to take a look in a mirror. Grandpallama (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I just looked in the mirror. That didn't change your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. Time for you to stop posting to my talkpage just for the purpose of being combative. Please don't do so again. Grandpallama (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- I just looked in the mirror. That didn't change your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sundayclose, I think you need to take a look in a mirror. Grandpallama (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
- Edit warring can exist regardless of whether an edit is right or wrong (as long as it's not vandalism). You are edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Jinnifer report
If you have any additional comments or evidence to add, (since you are more familiar with this likely sock than I am), I made a report here. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. They're a well-known nuisance, minimal evidence required. :) Grandpallama (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
You are a slut Payatagsjeusysh (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)