User talk:Informed analysis

Mtin76 edits

You have reverted all of Mtin76's excellent edits on Number 1 Tennis Players by Year. This is unfair and you did not even offer an explanation for doing this. His rankings are far more agreed upon by the majority of fans and experts than what you have in place now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatalieTenerelli (talk • contribs) 17:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Announcing you're going to edit war? Really? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Federer/Nadal lead edits

Listen Chief,

You are making objectively bad edits. It needs to stop. Focus your obsession with records on the RECORDS section, NOT the lead. DO NOT LENGTHEN THE LEADS WITH RECORDS THAT BELONG IN THE RECORDS SECTION.

Look - you are not using your brain. Some of the info there was wrong and I fixed it - Federer does not hold the record for Masters (27). Also, it have previously stated he had a record 5 straight wins, which does not make it clear how many actual total wins he had. Also, all quality writers know that you have to define if you are going to use 2 terms interchangeably; otherwise readers are confused.

It's a real shame then that you aren't a quality writer LOL. Whoever you are, if you had a bit of humility you may have acknowledged that the incorrect records I identified above, were indeed incorrect.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I have not made any disruptive edits. I have been making good faith edits to get the tennis articles more consistent and accurate - any good writer knows that if 2 terms will be used interchangeably (i.e. Grand Slams and Majors), you should make that clear - otherwise readers will be confused. Some people revoke any changes indesrciminately - that is why I said I would revert changes to what I addedInformed analysis (talk) 9:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Per agreement not to edit the Roger Federer article for four days. Please use article talk pages more and reverts less. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I will unblock you if you agree not to edit the Roger Federer article for four days (you can use the talk page). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

If Informed analysis agrees or any admin wishes to lift the block, no need to consult me. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed analysis (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

1977 - 1974 - 1975 - 1989

Let's see if we can agree on certain things. 1- The original article showed Vilas and Borg matched in 1977, such as the Spanish and French version of the same article in wikipedia today. 2- The article prior to my edition in reference to the year 1977 is not complete. Obvious the rankings of publications and personalities such as Agence France Presse, Eugene L. Scott, Livre D'or du Tennis, Tennis de France or Christian Quidet, all favorable to Vilas, instead says that "a minority" chose Vilas. 3- John Barrett and Bud Collins on more than one occasion declared that Vilas deserved to be No. 1 of 1977 4- Vilas was the tennis player who won more tournaments, games and points in the year. 5- Yes, Vilas participated in many 1-star tournaments, however he was also the tennis player who won more 5-4 stars tournaments (Roland Garros, Us Open, Washington, Tehran, South Africa, Louiville, Columbus). 6 - As historical revisionist investigations, we do not find a single ranking or note that names Borg as the best of 1977, all named Vilas. Examples TB Ranking by thetennisbase.com: https://thetennisbase.com/blog/vilas-one-on-the-court-two-in-the-desks/ histoiredutennis.com: "The year of Vilas": http://www.histoiredutennis.com/annees-70-3/Vilas-1977.html Prestige Ranking by Plos Magazine: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249 Scientific research of the Financial Times. For 1977, Vilas 5.73 against 5.72 to Borg and 5.48 to Connors: https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/ 7- The Grand Prix Ciruit is not taken as definitive form, but it should be taken into account as a parameter, since in 1977 it was the biggest circuit by far (82 or 83 tournaments against 20 WTC). Just as in 1964 the US Pro Tour is named (19 tournaments), it is fair to name the Grand Prix in specific seasons like 1974, 1975, 1977 (Vilas), 1983 (Wilander) or 1989 (Lendl). 8- Vilas should be considered Co-2 with Newcombe in 1974 since, in addition to winning the Grand Prix and the Masters, he was chosen in that position by notable rankings such as World Tennis and Bud collins that year. 9- Vilas must be considered C0-2 in 1975 (along with Borg, Connors and Orantes) because it was No. 2 of the ATP ranking and No. 1 of the Grand Prix. 10- In 1989, the subjectives of the ITF and Tennis Magazine rankings are named, and the ATP Ranking and, again, the Grand Prix are ignored. Lendl won 10 titles against 5 of Becker, who won 2 Grand Slam. Both are considered No. 1 that year — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtin76 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Becker vs Lendl 1989

Although I agree Becker was better than Lendl in 1989, it wasnt a huge difference like Connors vs McEnroe in 1982. Because of that I think it is probably best to go along with the rankings in part and have them co-#1 but you and Samanthastevenson40 seem to disagree. Lendl did spend the whole year ranked #1 on the computer.

World number 1 ranked male tennis players

Hi, just want to clarify that the tags added are not aimed at you or any specific editor. I explained the reason for adding them on the article talk page. Although they were added to the 1977 year they could in fact be added to almost any year but that would leave the article with 200+ tags which is overkill. 1977 is just an example of content that needs better sourcing.--Wolbo (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

1977 titles and win-loss

Hello Informed Analisis. checking the tennisbase database, in which im member, I found:

Vilas won a total of 22 tournaments (16 for ATP, record for ATP titles in one year) in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966520610745716738

Vilas has a record of 151-14 win / loss in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966524608542380032

Borg, effectively, won a total of 13 tournaments (11 for ATP) in 1977. SHARE YOU: https://twitter.com/MartinCQ5/status/966526613855834112

Thats why i edited these records. The sources contains names of titles and also calendary dates. I can share also the whole table to TB ranking year by year if its necesary to be used, specially in the oldest years. RegardsMtin76 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Informed Analisis: I repeat, the one that give 0,1 difference is the Financial Times investigation! you are confusing the sources! i give both sources and its Financial Times, For the year 1977, who had Vilas 5.73 score agains 5.72 for Borg (0,01) and 5.43 to Connors. PlAnd ease revised the sources. Plos One ranked equal Borg and Vilas is WRONG!!

PLOSONE MAGAZINE: Vilas LISTED N°1 of PRESTIGE RANKING!!!! CONNORS FOR ATP!!!

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0017249.t002

FINANCIAL TIMES: Vilas 77: 5,73!!! Borg 77: 5,72!!! That's the 0.01 diference you mean!!!

https://ig.ft.com/sites/novak-djokovic-the-best-tennis-season-ever/

(this change is inaccurate and shows the bias of the editor Mtn towards Vilas - this change will not be accepted.) ???? but the change was fine!!! stop call me biased, i suported all that i claim with sources in an article full of non-sources!!! call me biased and erased one correct edition with source included, bordering of vandalism. please push undo, im not the enemy here. thanks Mtin76 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

No. 1 pre-68

I wasn't sure your intentions, but often for pre-68 there were No. 1 rankings for both amateur and professional. Right now we only show the professional No. 1 player, but we might actually need both No. 1 listings in the box to be concise. Just food for thought. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to be be forward in time from 1983 now (to 1998). To be honest, I think there is adequate evidence that the pros were 20 or 30% better than the amateurs, so I don't think there is a need to insert amateur no. 1. The failure of Laver in 63 and Newcombe and Emmerson in 68 in evidence of such. Plus Gonzales clearly dominated Rosewall in 57. I think Ashe in 68 was sort of abberation, and that Rosewall was the real No. 2 (Rosewall beat him resoundingly in their only match and it was just a fluke that Ashe won the US Open instead of Rosewall or Laver, although I did not read all the details). Plus the Barrett stats about pros vs. amateurs in 1968 show the pro dominance. So, that is really my opinion. I must say I felt pretty triumphant when I finished up 68 last night!Informed analysis (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

High Italian Renaissance

Please DON'T move significant pages without a proper WP:RM. I have had to ask an admin to revert this frankly rather silly move - High Renaissance just is the WP:COMMONNAME, whether you think it should be or not. Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greater Toronto Area, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Waterloo and Kitchener (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) 09:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Renaissance art

Thank you for adding, but please please add references from reliable sources, or they may be reverted. Sadly, the article is not yet well referenced, but that's no excuse ;) - Another advice: don't put too much in one edit. When I see one thing wrong I am so tempted to revert all, and not sift the right and wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian Renaissance painting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Venetian School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Informed analysis. 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)

December 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Handedness, 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 22:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on North America. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Canadian English. Meters (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Seriously. Stop making unsourced edits. I have not seen a source in any of the edits you have made that I have checked, and in some cases you were directly contradicting very solid sources. Wikipedia is not a place for you to add your opinions, your original research, or what you think is correct. Meters (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Your recent editing history at World number 1 ranked male tennis players 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 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wolbo (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with my edits open a discussion on the talk page.--Wolbo (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at National Hockey League, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cougar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black bear (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) 09:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wolf. 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Refer WP:Tendentious. Thank you. William Harristalk 08:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cary Grant

You do not get to edit war. We work on WP:BRD around here and if you can't be bothered to adhere to it, then might I suggest that WP is probably not the place for you. The information you are adding is bloat. You need to demonstrate on the talk page why you think this bloat needs to be added. You are failing to do that. I suggest you grow up, behave like an adult, learn the rules and collaborate with others rather than work against them. Cassianto^Talk 06:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please keep things concise: if I post here, reply here. If you post on my talk, I'll reply there. Better still, post at the Cary Grant talk page as that would make more sense, no? Cassianto^Talk 15:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Your recent editing history at Cary Grant 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• If NeilN were still around, you'd have been blocked already, Informed analysis. You are obviously edit warring, and if you continue you will be blocked--no need to get particular about 3 reverts in 24 hours or whatever, I would file for Wikipedia:Edit warring and not even 3R, since in your case it seems to be an attitude, not just a reflex. Moreover, the article is a GA, and the person(s) you're duking it out with, Cassianto and SchroCat, have a serious number of FAs and GAs under their belts. In other words, they know what they're talking about, and you should take their concerns seriously.

  What else? You left a pretty aggressive note on Cassianto's talk page--but what you should be doing is taking this to the article's talk page. And if you are going to fuss at an editor with serious GA experience, you should probably be careful with how you write it, cause that was sloppy. And that's another problem--in Ingrid Bergman, you write things like "According to the St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, upon her arrival in America Bergman quickly became 'the ideal of American womanhood'"--"upon her arrival" is a terrible addition. Certainly one of the things you will need to argue is what seems to be a persistent desire to include the "opposite" actor, both for Grant and Bergman (I don't see the need for that, for instance, and neither do the other editors, I think). So, your pick. Keep this edit-warring up and you will get blocked, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martina Navratilova, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miami Open (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry Fonda, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Midway and Fort Apache (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Clark Gable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Strange Cargo

Georgian Triangle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Norfolk County

Southwestern Ontario (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Huron County

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kitchener, Ontario. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gregory Peck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gregory Peck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spellbound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gregory Peck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Night People (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gregory Peck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry King (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Hello, I'm Larry Hockett. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gregory Peck without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 12:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Gregory Peck

It's just my luck you should start editing after I had begun doing so. I am now left with a conflict edit and can't fix it until you have a break. I also see from above you have had a rough time of it lately haha 82.14.227.91 (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop with the absolute baloney of the mood of other editors

Your World number 1 ranked male tennis players summary was complete baloney. Now I am in a bad mood because I reverted the lie you inserted about Nadal winning the ITF championships. He has not!!!! I have no problem with leaving in the yearly summary but we are not a crystal ball here at Wikipedia. You know as well as I that sometimes the ITF and ATP don't agree with each other, and some turn out to be real head-scratchers. All you had to say was "why don't we leave in the data and keep the players blank until we know for sure." That would have been fine. But no, you to get in some sort of ridiculous dig because I reverted your factual inadequacies. Keep things on the straight and narrow and all will be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 17 November 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)

WP:SYNTH

Just a heads up that WP:SYNTH is still a thing, as it was recently when we discussed it at Talk:Gregory Peck. What is the disconnect here? The issue is not how many sources you evaluated; if none of those sources say what you want to insert into WP, leave out that content. Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing while logged out

Stop editing while logged out. It's getting disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gregory Peck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cape Fear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gregory Peck. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

September 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Gregory Peck, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Adams

Hi Informed analysis, Special:Diff/986811512's link to billboard appears to be a dead link. Was there a typo in it or do you have a live one? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:14, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Rush (band)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Rush (band), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You are adding a lot of rankling details without sources in mulitple places. Regards, -Fnlayson (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rush (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Money.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 16 November 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)

December 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at The Beach Boys, you may be blocked from editing. ili (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bryan Adams; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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 are violating WP:MULTIPLE by edit-warring at the same article using your registered username along with the range Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:57A0:DE0:0:0:0:0/64 which was already blocked for a month in November 2019. The cited source says the song is "karaoke standard" but it doesn't say that "more and more airplay" led to the karaoke status. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Over 60 Minutes with Red Rider, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don't Fight It.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct use of references

Hi, when you use the references you have to complete them, don't just leave the link WP:REFNAME. Thanks.:) Luigi936 ( talk) 14:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

FlightTime

Wikipedia is my business. Happy editing. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This edit summary is unacceptable. Please don't tell good faith editors they cannot take part. The policy about this behavior may be read at Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The Who changes

Can you discuss your changes on Talk:The Who? As is this a good article, you may need consensus and reliable sources before changes beyond basic typos and formatting can be accepted. See the policy on stewardship. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)