Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:34, 13 May 2017

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

H o t w i k i 's talk archive

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X

Awarded yourself?

Hey, I was just reading over your user page, and noticed at the bottom....did you award yourself with the Special Barnstar? If you did I didn't know you could do that.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am that awesome!SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.
You've reached three reverts; if another editor reverts your removal of long-standing and valid information (especially while a discussion on this very topic is active), and you revert them, you will have violated the policy WP:3RR. -- Alex 23:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert my edit again and you will get the same warning. I gave good reasons why those were removed and you are not in the position to just revert it for no good reason. Now there's the talk page in that article which I posted why those details were removed.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Noticed how I stopped reverting? I notice that you did not. If I reverted again, and you restored your own edit, that's a violation of WP:3RR on your part, not mine - read up? I gave my reasons, they were sufficient enough. Given that it's you constantly removing the content over a span of a number of days, obviously to avoid the 3RR policy, the WP:CONSENSUS stands to keep it until any talk page discussion concludes stating otherwise. -- Alex 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

No my reasoning to reverting your edits is justified. And you have a questionable track record of reverting my edits which I will surely address when I have to explain myself to other editors. Again you don't own that article and I listened to the editors' suggestion when I made a decision to remove certain things.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Read the policy I just linked you to. The consensus one. Then I'm sure you'll understand. And the same could be the same for yourself - you're the one blank reverting (especially section blanking!) other editor's additions and contributions to the article. -- Alex 00:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of X-Men members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page S.W.O.R.D. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

X-Men (Film series)

Hi, you deleted the Legion section stating that it was "definitely not a tie in", I can see where you are coming from, but that view is not shared by any of the official statements by the Donners, Fuller, etc., for example, http://screenrant.com/legion-tv-x-men-shared-universe/ Can you fix please? Damiantgordon (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This was already discussed in the talk page of the article. So you might be a little late for bringing this up. If you read the Legion article, you can read right there, the comments from the producers contradicting what you claimed that the producers have said.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

O.K., thanks Damiantgordon (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

This argument has however been disproved by the talk page. Users in favor of including Legion gave multiple reasons and references as to why it should be included on the page. The section was removed simply because of the confusion regarding the TV series. When the series creator/writer/producer/director states that it is and will be more integrated into the film-side of things, there is no debate. The confusion arises given the series' nature to stand on its own, and the lack of reliable storyline given the character's psychosis. It will eventually be included on the page. It will. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why are you so whiney?

I've been looking at the X-Men page lately and almost Everytime I look at it it's different somehow. Then I go to see who's been editing it and their comments on the edits that they've made and you really attack people who you deem as putting wrong information on the page for things as simple as who is or who isn't an X-Man or things like what constitutes too much or too little detail. This is a public encyclopedia where people are free to edit as they see fit so if you see something wrong why not just keep the comments simple like "added/removed/fixed content" instead of making comments that are clearly yelling at the previous editors? You catch more flies with honey than vinegar you know. Just a thought. I won't be the slightest surprised if you start yelling at me next. Papadim40x (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for wasting your time telling me your hilarious opinions. Not that Misplaced Pages needs it. Lol. Kthxbye! TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I too notice this, Papadim40x. There are editors on this webpage who believe they are more qualified than others. It's wrong and against Misplaced Pages policy. Be constructive in your comments, Hotwiki.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

What an observation. Remind me of a statement where I said I am better than other editors? I just try to be the best version of myself as an editor. That's all.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

^I would say the tone is more demeaning as opposed to 'whiney'. There is no such thing as an elite group on Misplaced Pages.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool story bro. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Examples of said "demeaning"

• "Now be a good editor and not do it again"
• "you're the one to talk"
• Beginning sentences with "So"
• Goading Fellow Editors - "Go ahead report me"
• Your refusal to hold a CONSENSUS on X-Men (film series) to implement major changes, as you are supposed to.

Nurseline247 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're putting too much thoughts about me. Just be the best version of an editor that you can be. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@HotWiki, I take by that statement that you will hold a CONSENSUS in future, like every other user has to?

Nurseline247 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you say so, Queen of holding consensus. TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

X-Men chart

I noticed you've re-edited the X-Men recurring characters chart on the X-Men (film series) page. I understand the need to shrink the chart as it was quickly getting to big and overly-detailed. I however think that the smaller formatting to the subtitles is something that has been done on various other pages, that may make the esthetic of the chart look nicer. Just a thought. --50.232.205.246 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

it adds nothing but style. Anyway, it looks inconsistent when some of the words are in smaller font size. So keep it as it is. It is the title of the film, deal with it, no need to cherry pick on which word should get an emphasis by using a bigger font size.TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have violated 3RR. You do not understand the need to discuss. You were warned of this. -- Alex 12:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Go ahead report me, I was just merely helping the article not to dwelve into speculative area. Again, the description was removed and freed the article for speculative information. What improvement did you make for the article aside for reverting my edits?TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You may have "just been doing this" or "just been doing that", but that does not excuse your edit-warring. The article has stood thus for undoubtedly longer than you've been editing it; you do not force your edits through edit-warring, and you've been blocked previously for edit-warring on the very same article. You were explained to that what you've added was not helping it "dwelve into speculative area"; rather, you were dwelving into it yourself, per what was explained on the talk page. -- Alex 12:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Again I was merely trying to improve the article. I gave you good reasons when I reverted your edits and gave a quick solution to the speculative part of the article's section. Next time, try to improve an article instead of impulsive reverts!TheVeryHotWikipedian (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

The reasons for your reverts don't matter. They count as reverts, and you should have left it to the last version of WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) while you discussed your issues, instead of violation WP:3RR (another policy). -- Alex 13:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

As I noticed no one informed you, there appears to be a thread about you on ANI. The User:DisneyMetalhead|OP]] didn't name you specifically (perhaps as a way of getting around the requirement to do so -- they didn't post any notifications to anyone else, anyway, nor explicitly name anyone on ANI), but User:AlexTheWhovian explicitly referred to you as the offending editor in question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I notified the editor that such a discussion existed; per the next edit: I wasn't the one who filed it, I'm not the one required to post the message. -- Alex 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

A comment on an article talk page in which you didn't ping the user, link the specific thread, or even specifically mention ANI, is not a valid notification. Also, you were the one who suggested to DMH to open the ANI thread in question, DMH thanked you for your idea, and, honestly, if it weren't for you using the words "the offending editor" I never would have even guessed that it was about any particular user from what DMH wrote, so as the one who had (in a manner of speaking) made the thread about Hotwiki, you arguably had as much of a responsibility to notify them as DMH did. 182.251.155.49 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And who am I speaking to, O Random IP? Your personal notes have been noted; however, again: I did not create the report, regardless of my own comments, hence I had no obligation to mention it to them. -- Alex 13:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)