User talk:Fireflyfanboy

Hello! Your submission of Blandford Church at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! – Maky ^« talk » 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gorgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First off, let me apologize for the lack of genuine communication about this. Second, however, I have to point out that just because, in your words, "Other DVDs on other articles have been mentioned before their release date," doesn't mean that those pages meet Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Nothing should be taken for granted. Just because Shout Factory confirms it doesn't mean it's guaranteed to come out on that exact day. In fact, WP:CRYSTAL specifically states, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." I have no real problem whatsoever with mentioning an upcoming release--there's no policy against that. But it needs to be made clear that the DVD is scheduled to come out, not that it will come out. As for the header listing the number of episodes that have been released, it's incredibly misleading to change the episode count until those episodes are actually available. Per WP:3RR, I haven't reverted the edits, but I've tweaked the article so that it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CertifiedHamiltrash (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC) so I noticed you edited the Alexander Hamilton page a few days ago. It won't let me edit it so I was wondering if you could make this edit for me. There is a small paragraph about places named after him in the legacy section and I wanted to add the fact that Hamilton County, Indiana was named after him. Thanks! CertifiedHamiltrash (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

BAFTA Award for Best Production Design

added links pointing to Catherine Martin and Alice Baker

BAFTA Award for Best Special Visual Effects

added a link pointing to Chris Lawrence

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Warning is in regard to your edit summary here [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Leonard Nimoy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Leonard Nimoy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Leonard Nimoy. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding this [2] edit summary: no one is harassing you. You are, however, being very disruptive to make a point as well as tendentious with your reversions and insistence on edit warring rather than discussing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Harold Ramis edit literally had nothing to do with the Leonard Nimoy discussion. I saw the point made by one of the users that there were only 4 actors mentioned by the current President once they passed away, and thought because of that, I would add that to Ramis' rather threadbare "illness and death" section. Following me to another article and deleting what I do simply because you don't want to be cited as precedent against your point on another article, and also assuming that is what I'm doing and why I'm doing it without asking me, does qualify as harassment in my humble opinion, and I'm prepared to bring it up to an admin.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since "The Great Movies" is a title, you need to be italicizing it when adding it to articles. Please go back and fix the adds you've already done. BMK (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I reference specifically the book, The Great Movies, I italicize it. But since we're talking about a grand project, I wanted a way to distinguish that from the book. So, my logic is when someone says "it was added to The Great Movies", that does not need italicizing because it's like saying it was put in the National Film Registry, or won the Academy Award for Best Picture, it's just a honorary title. But if someone made reference to "in his book The Great Movies, then it would need italicizing, because they are specifically talking about the book. Does that make sense? I think that's a pretty logical way of going about it. If you have a contrary opinion, let me know, and we can try to reach some sort of resolution.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably bring the italics issue to a wikiproject for the MOS. Other editors and readers are not going to understand the nuances that you are using regarding this. I can tell you right now editors who clicked on the link when it is italicized will want to add {{DISPLAYTITLE:''The Great Movies''}} to the article. More importantly you should not be adding the links until the article is approved. If it isn't then there is a needless red link in the articles you are adding it to. If the article is approved there is plenty of time for you to add it. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my past experience with a few articles like the one you have created I have started a discussion here Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Question regarding a list article waiting for approval. Please do not take this as an attack on your work. Back in 06 or 07 I spent hours and days (weeks actually) on a list like the one you have created only to have it all deleted. I know what a blow that can be. If the article is okay then that will be great. Please feel free to add your thoughts at the thread that I opened. MarnetteD|Talk 22:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fireflyfanboy, copyright issues are not something you put back into articles "until consensus is reached". That's not the way it works. I have removed the content again and applied revision deletion. Copyright policies are something we take very seriously on Wikipedia. I realize that you put a lot of work into that list, and I'm sure it's disappointing to have it removed, but we have to respect this issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response on the talk page. I'm not precisely clear about some of the issues, and have questions that I wish you provide sufficient explanation for rather than simply dismissing and deleting.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fireflyfanboy. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've reverted, what were essentially, your changes to this article as it's still too early in the UK. Additionally you should know that we never use Wikipedia as a reference as it's not considered a reliable source (see WP:WPNOTRS). Dpmuk (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) In the sentence "Elizabeth II is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations", the word "queen" is not a proper noun and thus shouldn't be capitalised.
2) Inline citations follow punctuation.
3) Duplicate citations are not allowed; delete one. Citations are not necessary in the lede.
4) Bare urls are not allowed. Use the appropriate citation template and fill in as many of the fields as possible.
5) You've reverted three times in 24 hours. You've apparently already been made aware of WP:3RR and WP:EW. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've taken a look at your most recent edits and we're both right in a way. If you look at the diff you're note that your first change in to a sentence that starts "On 9 September 2015..." so no problems there as it's properly qualified. However you'll notice that the second change in that diff is in a sentence that starts "She is..." and that's not true for another 11 hours or so - it's that I noticed and reverted. I apologise for not noticing the first change was correct and leaving it in. Can I suggest you self-revert that second change, or modify it so it is correct. I'm not going to because that will be edit-warring. Dpmuk (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues have been corrected.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and sorry again for the misunderstanding. With respect to the queen / Queen issue the change to lower case was made by User:IgnorantArmies with the comment "lowercase for common noun". I'm honestly not sure who's right but it may be worth starting a conversation with them about it. Dpmuk (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, glad we got it resolved. In regards to Queen vs. queen, would you/could you want to start a discussion on the talk page?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matt Damon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy Weir. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Great American Novel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Wright. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YUM Rtewqq (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Callmemirela. I noticed that you made a change to an article, The Disaster Artist (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Serial (podcast) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eudora Welty may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• books/98/11/22/specials/welty-home.html At Home with Eudora Welty: Only the Typewriter Is Silent]". ''The New York Times''. Retrieved November 28, 2011.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I'm Alice, and I reverted a change to Johnny Depp filmography as IMDB has… not heard of this Trump movie, and the referenced movie article similarly offers no citations or links to any external information about such a production. But, hey, seems to exist on FOD's site. It'd be awesome if you could update that with references. Thanks! GothAlice (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the process of updating it with references as we speak!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Board of Review Award for Best Cast, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Strong. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time 100, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Priscilla Chan. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war on the page again. Your comment was not deleted, it was archived, even though such a posting doesn't deserve even that. You may or may not like the lack of IB on the page, but your inflammatory soapboxing was so ridiculous it and contravened several guidelines, not least WP:CIVIL, and bordered on rank trolling. If you don't like the fact it's been archived, feel free to file a complaint on the point at WP:ANI. – SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made your point, but very badly and with gross insults. Your arguments are weak, and frankly not deserving of a response. Out of respect for the people that wrote the article, and not wanting them drawn in to the trenches you seem so eager to dig, your being reverted. I realise all this is very frustrating, but please modify your tone, if you want a better reception. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just read your February 2016 comment on the infobox for Ezra Pound. I thought it was hilarious and those pompous gasbags needed to hear it (though it was kind of against the spirit of Wiki rules). I was one of those people who innocently thought the article needed an infobox and got metaphorically yelled at. All my reasoned arguments met responses of "Pound is too complex to categorize"; "we decided against it and WE are the Pound editors"; and "people who like infoboxes are unintelligent." When I pointed out that the Wikipedia categories at the bottom did the same thing as the infobox and categorized the uncategorizable Pound they ignored that and insulted me some more. It's like banging your head against the wall and clear ownership behavior, but it's been that way for years and years and years. It is frustrating, but I'm glad you're still an editor. Cheers, kudos, and best of luck to you on Wikipedia. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the making of Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie was kept secret, resulting in a surprise release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Gari Melchers page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Gari Melchers Home page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Vice News Tonight, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vice News Tonight at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fireflyfanboy, it's been over three weeks. Please stop by the nomination page before the end of November; we need to hear from you if the nomination is to continue. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been further action with regard to the nomination. We really do need to hear from you. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments appreciated here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Do_we_need_to_do_some_consolidation_of_multiple_overlapping_US_cannabis_articles.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Talk:Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Proposing_bold_changes_at_Cannabis_in_the_United_States

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fireflyfanboy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vice News Tonight at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vice News Tonight, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that HBO's new daily news series Vice News Tonight was intended by Vice News to have "no ads, no anchors and no censors?" The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vice News Tonight. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vice News Tonight), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Free World# Recent additions and reverts". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cnilep (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the clarification. —ATS 🖖 talk 18:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because you don't know what an Alpha-global city is, that means it can't be included in the lead? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article you cited, Budapest isn't even considered an "alpha" world city, it's considered a "beta"...Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'll double check and see where it actually ranks. That still leaves you not knowing what something is and trying to use that as a reason to justify the removal of content. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen plenty of other articles about world cities in both articles about the cities themselves and/or the countries that contain them, and that was the first and only reference I've ever seen to categorizing a world city as either "alpha" or "beta" within a certain criteria, particularly in intro paragraphs. If there are other articles that do mention this, I welcome evidence to the contrary.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So whats stopping it from being included (other than your say-so)? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little thing called precedence...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For your team work on Nevertheless, she persisted. Bearian (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fireflyfanboy,

I believe the material you re-added to Nevertheless, she persisted was deleted after someone added a hatnote pointing at the same article. However, since the hatnote was inappropriately piped, I've now removed it, and am hoping that change and your addition will resolve the issue of where this info belongs. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up! Cheers! Fireflyfanboy (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I've raised a thing for mediation about the ongoing dispute about this template. Hopefully get this sorted one way or another

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:DC_Comics_films.23DC_Cinematic_Universe

Brooza (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this F. It sure is exciting news. I figure if I start saving now I'll have enough by December :-) Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the good vibes! You look like a pretty experienced editor, would you mind giving me some help with the listing of the movies? I'm having a little bit of difficulty putting them all in. Here's the link to what I've accomplished so far, the 100 Years of Olympic Films is the last entry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Criterion_Collection_DVD_and_Blu-ray_releases#Numbered Fireflyfanboy (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rats, I don't have much experience working with tables like these. We could ask Andrzejbanas who used to edit that list. Another suggestion is to ask for help at the WP:VPT. Sorry I couldn't be more help. MarnetteD|Talk 23:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those were pretty wacky tables, but I've added the remaining films. Its a bit of a brutal list and does not come off as very user friendly. Might need some re-organizing some day. In the meantime, I'm not sure if we should link titles to the Olympic games articles unless they at least mention the films. If they do not, its difficult to linking them per WP:EGG. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help Andrzejbanas. I agree with you a bout the article/egg situation. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 15:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Best works has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fireflyfanboy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you be able to put the NFR passages in the article body going forward, per WP:LEAD? It could go in a "Legacy" section. The lead section's sentence can be the same but without citation. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done!Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also, this is a bit much... mind reeling it in? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I lost my temper, that editor seems to be really abrasive despite the fact that I've been doing exactly what they want.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Running around demanding apologies when you've been telling people what idiots they are doesn't really work. I'd suggest dropping the stick and finding something else to edit. Deescalation is your friend. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fireflyfanboy, I feel like I owe you an apology since I am a relatively new editor and I want to be supportive, but at the same time offer proper guidance and I feel like I didn't live up to the task in this case. I was really hoping to be able to promote a way to foster mutual collaboration and it seems like I have much to learn about that. The good news is it looks like in the end the NFR got a pretty good mention in the lead after all. So hindsight being 20/20 I hope maybe we can see we all got our dander up over nothing really. Kinda silly when you think about it. Anyway, I hope your editing gets back to normal real quick so you can put this all behind you and move forward from here. :) Huggums537 (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate that. :) Honestly, it wasn't you as much as it was Flyer22 Reborn's behavior. I'm glad that a resolution was met. Fireflyfanboy (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm glad a resolution was met also. It seems everyone got what they wanted since the cosmetic issues were fixed and the NFR got the proper mention it deserved in the lead. That's why I say it all does seem silly in hindsight. It's good that Flyer22 Reborn did apologize and I hope that you have (or would be willing to) at some point also since you can probably look back on it and see whatever part you played in it as well. Sometimes it's good to just laugh about our mistakes and do better next time since we all have our ups and downs. I hope my own example of being willing to apologize even when most people hold me harmless will help you decide on the matter. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this: I was going off the caption at YouTube which I figured was accurate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at She's the Man, 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. Nzd (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple really. You can't use user-generated content as a reliable source. Feel free to readd this if you can find an actual reliable source. Nzd (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, using your Wikibureaucracy and various rules that aren't cited by anyone except overzealous editors, you have inserted yourself into a situation that had previously been handled, and you are now actively making it worse. I found a source that confirms my side in an edit war, and now I'm being told (by a single user) that it's not legit? This is Wikinitpicking and Wikihyprocrisy at its finest... Fireflyfanboy (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's really not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia that relies on reliable, published sources. You have added a "source" that is neither. WP:CITEIMDB, while not a policy per se, reflects the community consensus around how we can use IMDb and this is the standard that we follow. I won't revert further, but am raising the issue at WT:FILM. Nzd (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on She's the Man. 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. GoneIn60 (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but like, what the fuck am I supposed to do. Someone posted this information about the film being a remake. An overzealous user kept deleting it. I verified this was the case through IMDb. I was told to use a source. I cited said source. Now I'm being told said source isn't good enough. What options do I have? Christ, this is the reason I hate editing Wikipedia sometimes.... Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration, but it's quite possible a reliable source doesn't exist. I've responded to your comments on the talk page of that article, so let's continue the discussion there. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at She's the Man. 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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Anthony Bourdain shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Calton | Talk 02:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's four reverts. Self-reverting would be a good idea right about now. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's reach consensus first. Moreover, the fourth edit wasn't a revert...?Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the fourth edit wasn't a revert?

Really. So what was your edit summary "Someone removed Trump's reaction with no reason given" all about? Last chance here before I go the 3RR noticeboard and you have to convince an admin. --Calton | Talk 02:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're literally getting into semantics about what constitutes a "revert." Was I somehow unjustified in re-adding something that had been deleted without explanation...? You're the type of editor that makes editing on Wikipedia such a pain in the ass.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "semantics", it's a factual statement, with your own words as evidence that you knew it was a revert. So enough Wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 02:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the Obama comments wasn't a revert.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you went through my Talk Page to look for dirt... "Went through"? Guy, your block notice from June is directly above this section: I would have to have been blind not to notice it when I started this thread. Any more bad-faith claims you want to get off your chest? --Calton | Talk 03:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Congrats, I'm reporting you as a disruptive user.Fireflyfanboy (talk) 03:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Calton | Talk 13:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 00:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for a broad, substantial degree of disruptive conduct. My detailed behavioral analysis that led me to this decision can be viewed here. As I said there, this is not meant to be excessively 'harsh', and it is not meant to be permanent. It can be as short as you want it to be, but I'm seeing absolutely no indications that you can be reasoned with and will voluntarily resolve this situation, and a decisive change to your attitude and approach to editing is required if you wish to continue editing here. Please re-read all of the feedback you've received in the AN/I thread, and incorporate it into an unblock request that complies with the guide to appealing blocks. You're not being kicked off Wikipedia here, but you cannot continue editing here as long as you're not being reasonable.  Swarm  talk  08:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

I have been a long time editor, only wish to edit again, and will avoid contentious subjects like the one that resulted in my punishment this going forward.

Decline reason:

Avoiding contentious subjects is a small step, but this does not even begin to address the nature of your disruptive behavior, how we can be assured it will not happen again, and what you will edit about or do here if unblocked. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Template:Best works has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]