User talk:Abbyjjjj96/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Abbyjjjj96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

@Neil S Walker: I do not understand why you are informing me of this. I was checking the Ed Westwick page and am aware of it's current status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbyjjjj96 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It's nothing personal. The editor above is required to inform you of DS on the page you are editing, usually if you have begun editing contentious areas of the page or are involved in a dispute or have gone over the three revert rule, but it does not necessarily infer that you have done any of these things and it could just be that you are a new editor on the page, for example. Edaham (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Andrew Keegan. 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: In regards to the links around his place of birth, I'm unsure why you cited "WP:NOTBROKEN redirects are okay especially when they avoid WP:OVERLINKs" as your cause for reversion because my edit left the same number of links, making your reasoning moot.

And in regards to not including "U.S." in his place of birth, you cited "WP:CONSENSUS regarding US use in infoboxes" but I have been unable to find a guideline that says not to include the US. The Template:Infobox person page includes the US in their examples. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Linda Evangelista, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 20:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on François-Henri Pinault. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 20:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that having a child together made their relationship significant enough for them to be included in one another's infobox. I did not include a source because of the WP:INFOBOXCITE guideline. —Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Abbyjjjj96. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Abbyjjjj96. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Alicia Ostriker does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Sometimes you do add edit summaries (ESs). Thank you, but it's the guideline to include ESs with _all_ edits - even minor ones. Trafford09 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice to wrong user

Following up on this, I noticed your recent copy fixes to Elissa Silverman and Mary Cheh. I was prompted (particularly for Silverman, where your edits substantially reduced the article length) to check them to make sure they were good faith, and I suspect several other edits probably were as well. While upon inspection they were clearly fine, it would have saved me and whoever else checked time and allowed us to edit more efficiently if you had included a summary. Please consider doing so more regularly in the future. Sdkb (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have never edited Elissa Silverman or Mary Cheh's articles. Looking at their revision history, it seems you meant to send this to Therequiembellishere. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies! Not sure how I got that mixed up. Sdkb (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Introductory commas

Thanks for your many recent edits. Please note that the introductory comma at the beginning of a sentence, is of American usage not British style. Thanks. Anna (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Good catch on the AfD Discussion

Thank you for pointing out the suspicious keep vote. I've added a note to the discussion so fellow editors are aware (and will most likely disregard it entirely). Orville1974 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

kitten

New editing is accurate as to the names, date, place specified. I strongly recommend that you reach out to the Dubai Royal Family for further comment.

Nancy Bernadette 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nancy Bernadette (talk • contribs)

The Dubai royal family have already announced Sheikh Hamdan's new wife as "Sheikha Sheikha bint Saeed bin Thani Al Maktoum". There is no mention of a "Nancy Bernadette" (yourself?). I have already left a notice about sources on your talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

My name is Nancy Bernadette. Yes I am new to Wiki today and made some updates to Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's Wikipedia page in good faith. I have been edited out and contacted by persons because they felt my information inaccurate. Then I was accused of being a vandal. I did talk with the Crown Prince of Dubai just now and he and his office will look into the matter working hours Dubai time tomorrow. I am sorry for rookie mistake made today. Nancy Bernadette 23:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anastasia Vashukevich, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergei Prikhodko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Use the talk page of the article

If you want your edit on the Beyonce article to be kept on the article then I suggest you use the talk page and stop adding it back over and over again. I don’t think your edit will be considered constructive but rather redundant. You can try though.--EsotericJoe (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@EsotericJoe: It was because my edit clarified that her birth name must be Beyonce, not Beyoncé, and thus the subsequent details about her forename's pronunciation weren't accurate for the name without the accent. I reverted your edit once, not "over and over again". Your edit also removed the pronunciation details entirely. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Your warning

You warned me for not using an edit summary here, even though I did. I am unsure if you are a troll or simply made a mistake, but either way WP:DONOTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. Giant Snowman 16:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I did not warn you for not using an edit summary. I gave you the misleading edit summary warning, i.e. "your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made". Your edit summary cites MOS:DATEFORMAT but you did not alter the date format. Maybe acknowledge your own mistakes before accusing other people of being trolls? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary was correct. Giant Snowman 20:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, please WP:DONOTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. A vandalism warning? Seriously? Get a grip. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, for removing information under the guise that it was from a twitter troll when I used a reliable source. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Warring

You seem to be engaged in an edit war on the Mermaids (charity) page and may have violated WP:3RR by reverting a user's edits 3 times. Please undo your last edit and discuss the issue on the talk page of Mermaids (charity). Rab V (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I made three reversions. Per WP:3RR, a violation is more than three reverts in 24 hours. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Nina Dobrev, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. This has been discussed multiple times on the article's talk page. Please read it. You were undone. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to start a new discussion. Don't restore it. Meters (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: Actually, the edit I made has never been discussed on the talk page. The discussions are all regarding the lead, not the citizenship parameter in the infobox. WP:DONTLIE. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the same point, and you restored your edit after it was reverted. Meters (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: It's not the same point given that the lead and the infobox parameter have different uses (a point you keep ignoring). I restored my edit on the good faith that the other user misunderstood and explained in the edit summary, but—like you—they seem intent on ignoring whatever doesn't fit their agenda. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me. I'm not interested in continuing this in two places. And your accusation of lying is verging on a PA.

Restoring your edit was disruptive. The editor stated that he undid you because your edit was unsourced, which it was. You don't get to restore an unsourced claim (that has been challenged) that she is a citizen , and claim that the editor instead needs to prove that she is not a citizen. I don't believe that you thought the other editor had misunderstood and thus made your restore in good faith. Meters (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits have been rejected

Hi Abbyjjjj96

I am Guy Pearce's music manager, and our team have been trying to edit the Personal Life section of his page to accurately reflect the true status of his relationship with the mother of his child. It is true that he had a brief relationship with actor Carice Van Houten in 2015/2016, and they have a son. While they remain good friends and co-parents of their child, the media have wrongly presumed they are still in a relationship. You will not see anywhere that Guy or Carice have stated they are still in a relationship, because it is not the case. What can we do please, to edit their respective pages to reflect the true situation and have these edits remain? They are very private people, and this is something they don't talk about in the media, so their Wiki profiles wrongly reflect the conclusions some media outlets have jumped to.

We tried earlier today to make an edit, and received the following message from you:

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Carice van Houten, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischief60 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mischief60: Try looking at the guidance here. Maybe contact the volunteer response team. Best wishes. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gleb Pavlovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fiona Hill.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Canvassing

This is canvassing (which is disruptive behavior) because you introduced your bias by describing them as "boyfriends". The comment should have only been "Can we get more input on this RfC?", followed by the link. Stop doing that. Now we have two reasons that the RfC is invalid. And I'm not arguing with you about this. I will start a legitimate RfC after this one has been dismissed. Sundayclose (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:RfC: "When posting a notice at those locations, provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC." Referring to two of her ex's as "boyfriends" is not bias and the RfC is not invalid just because you don't like the perceived outcome. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

When the very issue is "boyfriend", that's inserting your bias. But I'll argue no further. There'll be a new RfC if this one is not decided properly. Sundayclose (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

dmy dates

Hi Abbyjjjj96. I was pleased to see you make several improvements to Miroslava Duma. I did want to point out one thing: the "use dmy" template that you added at the top of the page will automatically format yyyy-mm-dd dates in citation templates. You also manually formatted them, which is extra work. I suppose it's also perhaps slightly less flexible for the future, although not worth worrying about. Anyway, I just wanted to save you possible work on future edits. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Use dmy dates says, when you check the article for inconsistent date formats, you should fix any found. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you should read that as "remove any manually-mdy-formatted dates" when you add the dmy template. (The reverse, of course, for mdy.) The yyyy-mm-dd dates get consistently formatted! Unless I'm missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The dmy template would display the mdy dates in citations as dmy as well, not just the ymd ones. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You cannot close an RfC that you have participated in

Read WP:CLOSE. Please revert the closure and wait for a proper closure. Sundayclose (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A better link is WP:RFCCLOSE: "There are several ways in which RfCs end: ... 4.Any uninvolved editor can post a formal closing summary of the discussion." No-one who participates in an RFC is uninvovled, least of all the person who opened it. Meters (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't realize that was a rule and have reverted the closures. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: @Sundayclose: I reverted per the guidelines linked, however I have since seen that WP:RFCLOSE says "Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion" and WP:ACD says "If the outcome is truly uncontroversial, closures by involved editors are permitted and even encouraged." ??? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's rare (especially by the creator of the RfC), and Wikipedia is not a newspaper that needs to rush to print. It smacks of bias. It can wait. Sundayclose (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a bad idea for an involved editor to do so. It's a really bad idea for the RFC proposer to do so. Yes the outcome looks like a given, but you should not be the one to decide that, particularly without even proposing a closure in the RFC.

And please don't open RFCs on points that have not even been discussed on the talk page yet, as you did at Talk:Christina Ricci. That was a premature RFC on a point that seems to have been easily decided. Again you should not have closed it yourself. In that case, since the consensus so far seems to be against your proposal, you could simply have withdrawn the RFC. Meters (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, Meters, it's a very good idea for an RFC proposer to summarize their own RFC results when it's obvious that their proposal has been rejected. A gracious concession speech is a beautiful thing and to be encouraged. But when you are winning, it may seem ungracious.

I've just pulled that RFC tag and boxed it up. Collecting further comments seems pointless. I deliberately did not add a summary statement, as the result should be obvious to every participant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

user:WhatamIdoing I didn't say she couldn't. That was another editor. I said it was a bad idea, particularly without first suggesting a close in the discussion. And you might want to read the Winona Ryder RFC more closely. She did not close an RFC where her position had been rejected. She closed an RFC in 'favour of her position (to exclude the mention of the former boyfriends). The other RFC the user self-closed was unnecessary in the first place. As I said, it would have been fine for Abbyjjjj96 to have withdrawn that RFC. The user was trying, but was clearly not familiar with normal RFC actions. Please don't encourage more out-of-norm behaviour. Meters (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You said that it's "a really bad idea". I said that it is sometimes a very good idea, and gave one example of when it's a good idea. It is true that those circumstances do not attain for that RFC, but I thought that would be obvious to everyone in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Lily James

Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person, as you did at Lily James. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 02:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Natalia Poklonskaya

Hi! Sorry, I had to revert your edit ([1]). Could you please tell me, was the essay you are referring to ever discussed somewhere? It's poorly written and it looks like someone's utterly personal opinion. (I would actually say that the essay conveys false information. Cause the author implies that stress marks aren't needed even in a Russian encyclopedia. Which is simply not true. It is often not obvious where to put a stress in a Russian name. Like, why is it "Poklónskaya" and not "Poklonskáya"? How would you determine the stress placement if it weren't marked?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I have previously added stresses, but I was reverted and directed to WP:RUSTRESS recently. I would suggest contacting the user who created the page. They've had a conversation about it on their talk page (here), but I don't know if there was an official discussion anywhere. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

After looking at the conversation you pointed me to and this edit, I decided to simply userfy that essay or whatever that was. It really looks like the user created the page to promote his personal point of view. (By the way, the user practically attacks the Russian Wikipedia in his essay. That doesn't look right at all.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Of course they are not needed in ruwiki too. It's a madness and I go nuts when I see them all the time in trivial words. And it's one of the reasons why I'm not there any longer. It's bran-damaging, really. "Valdí-súbst:udármirovna"! And I don't "practically attack the Russian Wikipedia", I just do it.

Abbyjjjj96, thank you a lot for accepting my essay and generally for seeing the reason. Now that my essay is under attack, I invite you to the discussion to make your own opinion, and maybe to express it there. — Mike Novikoff 04:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Abbyjjjj96

Thank you for creating Ivory Jean Paul Gaultier dress of Marion Cotillard.

User:Alexandermcnabb, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Perhaps add a project tag to the talk page?

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Alexandermcnabb}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary on Eddie Izzard (December 2020)

Hey there, I'm Roxy. Things may have gotten a little heated in the edit history for Eddie Izzard. Some of your good-faith contributions were reverted by another editor, because one of them made substantial changes to the subject's pronouns. That revert may have been overly hasty, because it also reverted your other changes to punctuation and templates. Thank you for restoring these changes, but your edit summary, "Restoring corrections to make up for [editor]'s incompetence," was uncalled for. Please assume that User:AussieWikiDan's revert was done in good faith, not out of an attempt to undo your hard work. If you feel an editor used poor judgement, please give them the benefit of the doubt and explain your disagreement in a way which does not personally attack them. Thank you, and happy editing. -RoxySaunders (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@RoxySaunders: Maybe read through the history first? WP:AAGF. I told them they should perform a partial revert to keep the beneficial changes, but they removed the changes again and claimed they couldn't do it. I questioned them about it and linked to WP:RV, but they ignored me (they responded to another user's comment afterwards). Therefore, it was clear to me that they had no intention of reincluding the contributions they removed, and I was forced to go through and perform the same changes to make up for their refusal to do so. Looking through some policies I can see from Wikipedia:Competence is required that "incompetent" is considered unhelpful, but why are you not also warning them about their behaviour? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I did indeed read the history, and did my best above to summarize it, but I may have skipped a few details, as you noted. As I understand it, both of you made a full revert, when you ideally should have made a partial revert. I'm not "warning" either of you for not perfectly adhering to the good-practices outlined in Wikipedia:Reverting. I only came by to say that your words came off as harsh and rude, in a way which perhaps you didn't mean them to. The history is in the past, so the only thing to do now is move forward. RoxySaunders (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

They should have been the one to make a partial revert in the first place. And you skip over another detail, that I left a comment on the talk page about it and they ignored me. They were rude by removing another editor's contributions and refusing to replace them. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Russian stress marks

Please stop all edits with regard to Russian stress marks. Edits should not be made while there is an ongoing discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a discussion. Thanks for letting me know. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Alina Kabayeva religion

Please refer to talk page of Alina Kabayeva before undoing my work Agulani (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LR says information should not be removed if a source is dead. There was no point leaving a comment on the talk page to say that when I could just tell you in the edit summary of the revert. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove it because it was "dead" which is not true, i removed it because it did not state that she convert to Christianity since when reading bible means conversion? I'm Muslim i have read Bible and Torah, how does that make me Christian? You can not claim that someone is Christian/Muslim/Hindi and etc. without a confirmed source Wiki is not place for "gossips" and what babushkas talk in podyezd. if you want to refute with sources please refer to talk page as everyone does hence its called "talk page" Agulani (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

When I try to go to the source, I get a security warning and it takes me to the website's home page and not an article about Kabaeva. I will reply further on her article's talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What do with it?

Some of his out of marriage relationships included relationship with Zeenat Aman,[326] Emma Sergeant, Susie Murray-Philipson, Sita White, Sarah Crawley,[1] Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Caroline Kellett,[327] Liza Campbell,[55] Anastasia Cooke, Hannah Mary Rothschild,[328] Jerry Hall, and Lulu Blacker.[329][330] Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to make sure that you saw this. You inadvertently got caught up in something at Talk:Emma Portner. Mo Billings (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth Gloster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris Berezovsky.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Johnny Depp

Making a WP:BOLD edit to the lead as you did here regarding Johnny Depp's divorce is fine, and perfectly in agreement with editing policy. However, when you are reverted for cause and then reinsert the same material again, you are engaging in WP:EDITWARRING. The correct action in a case like this, is to raise a discussion on the Talk page to talk out any content disagreement among interested editors and to seek consensus on what the article should say, not to simply insist on your preferred version by reverting back again. You have years of experience as an editor, and I'm sure you know this already. As it happens, another editor came in behind you and returned the lead to status quo ante, and invited you to discuss. Next time, please follow the suggestions at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle if a similar case arises. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You reverted me claiming I violated a policy which actually supported my edit, as I pointed out. The other editor informed me there was a discussion on the talk page, and I sent them a thanks for that. You wouldn't have been able to see the thanks, but you'll note that I did not revert again. I was not edit warring as that requires repeated reversions and I only made one, and I'd argue that reversion didn't really go against WP:BRD either (your reversion was not truly supported by a policy. See WP:BRD-NOT), so your comment here is completely unnecessary. In the future, please take more care when citing policies so as not to incorrectly claim editors have violated them; it is unconstructive. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I did notice you didn't revert again, and following up by discussing is the right way to go, so thanks for that. One thing to think about: if it's okay to undo a revert that isn't supported by policy, then it is *always* okay to undo a revert by anybody, anytime. Why? Because when editor B reverts editor A, then editor A gets to evaluate whether editor B's revert was supported by policy or not. So, if A thinks B reverted contrary to policy, then A can simply undo the revert. Do you see a problem with this logic, vis-a-vis WP:BRD? Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karolína Kurková, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CURLY

Ah, that makes sense. I knew Wikipedia would prefer those "straight" quote marks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ubl template in infobox

Hi, I noticed your use of the ubl template in the infobox in Garry Kasparov. It looks logical to me and my reaction was, "Why didn't I think of that?" But I wonder if there is some policy that says you should use ubl in this situation, use bare <br> in that situation? There are probably quite a few chessplayer bios in which this technique could be used, if it is correct to do so. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Hi, I think I recently saw another user's edit summary cite a policy/guideline saying that <br>'s should no longer be used (possibly just in the infobox??), however I can't remember what they cited or which article it was on so I'm not certain (maybe it was just their personal preference). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe MOS:UBLIST or MOS:NOBR. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much! Bruce leverett (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(watching:) instead of ubl you could also use {{hlist}}, and - as far as I know only "br" is bad, but "br /" ok. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:NOBR says "Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br />)." Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Boris Johnson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is in the CNN source. Maybe read it? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor 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. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, my second revert was because you ignored the cited guideline. Only afterwards did you provide a reason (which only partially restored your edit and kept part of my change which you had reverted before, cherry-picking from the same guideline you had cited yourself earlier). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignored the cited guideline? No. Consensus at the cited guideline is clear: the birth name parameter should not be used merely to show the middle name. DrKay (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

And now you are misrepresenting. I'm not talking about the talk page archive you gave as a reason afterwards. The cited guideline was Template:Infobox person; you ignored that the name parameter is for the common name/article title, not the full name. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresenting? No. I directly quoted from the template page. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

*Sigh*, is this conversation really continuing? Another misrepresentation from you. Your direct quote was in the edit summary that prompted my first reversion, citing the same template guideline. My second revert was of your edit with the summary "remove repetition". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am required by policy to respond to queries regarding my actions. There is nothing in any of my edit summaries that is misleading or inaccurate. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The misrepresentations are your comments here on my talk page, not in your edit summaries. I should have just commented on your talk page before reverting a second time, but I first commented here in response to the warning to explain why I reverted again (it's my talk page, after all). Your first edit regarding this cited a template guideline, then I reverted citing another part of the same template guideline, then you reverted with the justification "remove repetition", ignoring the template guideline. But when I explained that (above) as the reason for my second reversion, you responded by denying ignoring it and mentioning the guideline at the talk page archive, which was what you cited after my second reversion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm obviously not ignoring the template guidance. That is clear from my edit summaries and comments here. The template guidance is to not repeat the name in the birth name parameter. The birth name parameter is used when the birth name is different from the name. It is for showing when there are changes in name from birth. DrKay (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person does say that (although the part about not mentioning the birth name unless it has been changed is not on the main page but buried in the archive, which is contradicted by the infobox example). It also says that the name parameter is for the "common name/article title", but you restored his middle name to the parameter, so you were ignoring the guidance there (and, because the birth name bit is only in the archive and not on the main page, I thought you were ignoring the guidance for that too, as I was unaware of the archive discussion which you did not cite until afterwards). Your final edit after my second revert did not restore the middle name there and linked to the archive discussion, but I did not dispute that edit and it was my second revert that I was explaining here since that's what you gave me the edit warring warning for. If you respond here with more misrepresentations, I'm not going to bother and will just revert you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Last month, I pointed out that the birth name parameter of infobox person should not be used if the birth name of the article subject is the same as their current name, or merely to show a middle name (as discussed at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 30#Birth name parameter). You sought clarification of that from an independent third-party,[2] which was given.[3] Nevertheless, you have continued to use the birth name parameter merely to show the middle name.[4][5]. Please do not do so. Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#DrKay and Abbyjjjj96, if you still suspect me of harassment you may raise this post at a noticeboard. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Indentation at Talk:Elliot Page

Hi Abbyjjjj96! I am hoping you will self-revert your recent edit at Talk:Elliot Page. The other editors tweak looked like a MOS:LISTGAP accessibility fix. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Elliot Page

Hi, I just wanted to explain why I modified your comment. It's an accessibility issue, as written up at Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks: while the visible formatting doesn't change, the underlying HTML structure that Mediawiki generates changes, and it does so in a way that makes screen readers have a much tougher time parsing the text. It's best to avoid mixing asterisks and semicolons when indenting on talk pages. Sorry for making what looks like a pointless modification of your edit, but there was a reason; I won't edit it again, but I'd ask that you reinstate the change to an asterisk. No stress, though. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

lol Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that guideline! I think I made minor formatting corrections to another user's comment to fix a list on a discussion before and was reverted and told not amend other people's comments at all. I reinstated your correction and corrected the others as well. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Great corrections! Fixing format errors is one of the exceptions to the our guideline against editing others' comments, but I also get push-back sometimes and find a courtesy talk page message usually does the trick. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks from me too! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Ched (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

A revert is a revert regardless of any "reasons" you feel are right. Please read WP:3RR. You have at least 5 reverts in 24 hours, and none of it is for vandalism. Please rethink your approach here. If you continue editing like this then it's likely your next block will be for longer, and possibly from the entire project. — Ched (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes I explained at the noticeboard that the first two were from following a guideline and the third was reverting a disruptive edit ignoring consensus, and I had not realised the fourth and fifth counted as partial reverts since I was following the user's edit summaries to fix material that was original synthesis, and since being reported I read WP:3RR but could not revert myself because another user had removed the information I had amended part of. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Now will you be doing the same to the 20 or so other articles you added this to over the past day or so? It's not other user's responsibility to clean up after your edits. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your complaint. I expanded the information in Allen's article because I thought the petition should be mentioned and didn't care to argue over it. I personally do not find the original edit to be inappropriate and thus disagree that the others need to be 'cleaned up'. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The original source – The Guardian – makes it clear that the petition was created in response to how Polanski was arrested—at a film festival. You edited at least two dozen articles using that source as a pretence to insinuate all the signatories somehow disagreed with the original criminal charge. Your edits definitely do need to be corrected, per WP:BLP and other policies. Suggest you do this immediately. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't use that source in every article. You seem to misunderstand my disagreement. You accused me of "subtly trying to suggest" which assumes bad faith. My original phrasing does not insinuate that. I wrote that they signed a petition in support of Polanski when he was arrested in relation to his 1977 charge. It's a brief statement, and absolutely could be expanded upon, but I don't agree that it has to be expanded upon because it's not incorrect. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL. No, you didn't use that source in every article. You amended later edits to include la regle du jeu. It's debatable whether that's even an WP:RS. But you used both sources to add the same text to every article: "In 2009, [X Surname] signed a petition in support of film director Roman Polanski, calling for his release after he was arrested in Switzerland in relation to his 1977 charge for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl." Let's count together, shall we? [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44] and [45]. 40. That's 40 articles you added that text to. This is not the editing behavior of a user genuinely here to build the encyclopedia. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I alternated sources because The Guardian one only names a handful of signatories. I wasn't aware that La Règle du Jeu is debated as a reliable source? It's not listed at WP:RSP. Why on earth are you interpreting me adding that content to many articles as not genuinely here to build the encyclopedia? Why would I add content I think is relevant to only one or two articles? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96:, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and for most of these biographies, it is not a major feature of their entire life that they signed this letter. What was your motivation for this? I would be inclined to suggest that you first revert all of these additions, and then initiate a discussion at a centralized discussion location, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, and try to achieve consensus there for your additions. The reason I suggest revert first, is that if you revert now, you can do it easily with one click on the "Undo" link in the history, while your edit is still the latest one. If you wait for the discussion at WT:BIOG to finish, which could be a week, or a month from now, by that time some of the articles may not have one-click Undo available anymore if someone has edited after you. Your choice, but I think someone should definitely start a discussion at WT:BIOG about this, and it would be a better look if you were the one to do it. Mathglot (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like all but one of the articles were edited after my edits before you even left this comment. I really don't see how it's not relevant, and if anything it's suspicious that my additions are being contested when so many other articles contain information which is "not a major feature of their entire life" as you put it.
For example, Giuseppe Tornatore's article says he describes himself as "one who does not believe and who regrets this"; Jeanne Moreau's article says she was a close friend of Sharon Stone; Monica Bellucci stated: "I am an agnostic, even though I respect and am interested in all religions. If there's something I believe in, it's a mysterious energy; the one that fills the oceans during tides, the one that unites nature and beings."; Jason Isaacs has spoken of travelling unrecognised to film premières on the London Underground, saying, "They just think, who's that t*** in black tie? As soon as I get on the red carpet they start screaming and screaming."; Emma Watson became certified to teach yoga and meditation. As part of this certification, she attended a week-long meditation course at a Canadian facility, in which residents are not allowed to speak, in order "to figure out how to be at home with myself".
That's not even getting into support of political or social issues in so many biographical articles, e.g. Tilda Swinton's article includes that she stated her support for Scottish independence and that she appeared photographed in front of Moscow's St. Basil's Cathedral holding a rainbow flag in support of the country's LGBT community, reportedly releasing a statement: "In solidarity. From Russia with love."; David Lynch's article says he expressed support for Black Lives Matter protests; Sam Mendes is an opponent of Brexit; Margot protested against giving an award to Roman Polański at a film festival which was taking place at the National Film School in Łódź; Nina Hoss' article mentions her signing a petition in support of director Kirill Serebrennikov; Tom Stoppard, Kevin Spacey and Jude Law's articles mention them joining a street protest against Alexander Lukashenko's regime, which isn't even a major feature of their activism yet alone a major feature of their lives; and countless other biographies have details like that.
The signatories of the Polanski petition were publicly supporting a filmmaker when he was arrested at an international film festival in a case that generated a lot of media attention and controversy. If that's not relevant to biographical articles, neither is support of any political or social cause and all statements on such matters should be removed from every biography, unless that is not the crux of the issue here. It's hard not to see the removal of the support for the Polanski petition as being specifically because it relates to a man's charge of raping a 13 year old girl, and thus as yet another sign of Wikipedia's bias against women's issues. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, please assume good faith. If you believe that calling for consensus at a neutral forum like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography is "yet another sign of Wikipedia's bias against women's issues" then I hardly know how to respond. But this is not the place to debate this, it needs a broader venue where others can weigh in. Since you appear not to have taken up the mantle, I'll go ahead and do so and ping you so you're notified. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: WT:BIOG § Modification of several dozen biographies to note signatories of the Polanski support letter.

That part of my comment was not about your call for consensus. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ameera Al-taweel's Wikipedia page

Dear Abbyjjjj96, I hope you are well,

I am contacting you, in regards to Ameera Al-taweel's wiki page, which I tried time and time again to edit and add the correct information based on her directions, as I am working as het office manager. A lot of the information in her page are either outdated or plain wrong.

Kindly advise me on how to edit that page correctly, please note that I don't have other sources other than Ameera Al-Taweel's directions to me.

Best Regards

Abdulrahman Albadri — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdulrahmanSAlbadri (talk • contribs) 17:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@AbdulrahmanSAlbadri: Hello. If you find the article contains personal information or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate the issue and possibly remove it from the page history. If you have legal or other serious concerns about material on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, you may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team. Please e-mail info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to the article and details of the problem; for more information on how to get an error corrected, see here. If you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to a concern about biographical material about living persons, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly; see here for details. Best wishes. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Hello. You have recently contributed to this article or its talk page. Please see this discussion on the talk page. You are welcome to take part if you are interested. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

173.87.170.14

When someone personally goes after another editor as they did with this edit I tend to lose my sense of humor. I have no patience for trolls and my willingness to not bite them tends to evaporate. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well your bite was in response to another comment they made after they struck that comment. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Quad Axel

Are you sure about your revert on the quad jump article. The quad axel is different from the other quad jumps because it requires 4 and a half rotations. That puts it between a quad jump and a quintuple jump. The material appears to cover this information since the quad axel is between a conventional quad jump and a quintuple jump. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure. It's still a quad jump and your edit was about the measurements for quints, not a quad Axel. The bit about Hanyu wasn't necessary, that a quad Axel requires four and a half revolutions is already mentioned in the lead, and his quad Axel attempt is mentioned in the 'History of firsts' section. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The part in the lead section mentioning 4.5 rotations is unsupported in the main body of the article, which is required buy Wikipedia for material put into the lead section. Here is a reliable source which mentions the 4.5 rotations which could be added into the Execution section of the article here: [46]. Could you bring this into the article or would you prefer me to add it into the main body of the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)