User talk:70.112.229.80

November 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Joëlle Jones has been reverted. Your edit here to Joëlle Jones was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (http://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/37498/1/female-comic-book-artist-prada-ss18-mfw-brigid-elva-joelle-jones-trina-robbins) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

November 2017
Your recent editing history at Me Too (hashtag) 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  08:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Me Too (hashtag), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. FallingGravity 20:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tarana Burke has been accepted
 Tarana Burke, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Tarana_Burke help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

November 2017
Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from Weinstein effect 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. Please do not removed sourced material without consensus on the talk page. Ifnord (talk) 21:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What you didn't do is discuss on the talk page your removal of sourced material. Primary sources, like the Times information you deleted, is considered more credible than Wikipedia articles. Removing a primary source to rather point to a Wikipedia article should involve a discussion on the article's talk page. Ifnord (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

RE: #metoo
This is jammerbirdi. Thank you for the explanation on editing content about yourself. I didn't know that. I'm sorry for undoing your edits in light of hearing it.

There are some holes and unconnected dots in the 'origin' story of #metoo. I'm particularly interested as I am one of those dots. I will do some more research on finding out how to provide and verify information to those who are permitted to edit entries that apply directly to me.

One thing, for your trouble, that doesn't apply directly to me is this. On October 16, the day after Alyssa Milano's tweet calling for the hashtag to be used and with #metoo already having gone global, Alyssa tweeted that she'd she'd JUST learned of a previous metoo movement. So Tarana Burke was not the source of the idea as Alyssa Milano hadn't heard of that movement unto the day after she called for the hashtag movement. Alyssa has said only that she got this idea from a friend.

Look, in the long run, what's important is that there is now a movement that allows women to add their voice and experiences to the record. But Wikipedia, like any good encyclopedia is about spot-on accurate information and unvarnished detail. As a person who has been watching this all happen for the last month with the weirdest mix of great satisfaction and abject terror (because I live in LA and want to live here happily ever after and I don't know what no-good-deed-goes-unpunished story might result as my name becomes a part of this) I feel a great responsibility for the information on this Wikipedia page to be accurate and true.

Anyway.

Again, I meant no disrespect and I'm sorry for the misunderstanding (on my part.)

db

Jammerbirdi (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

a more complete record?
you would have to want the most complete and accurate information, wouldn't you? if you're editing Wikipedia pages in good faith?

Jammerbirdi (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Kb.au (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

December 2018 / DCEU edits
Please stop your disruptive editing. Take to the talk-page for discussion before you begin throwing shade towards other users.-DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * All edits that you deem appropriate that change the article as it stands - need to be taken to the talk-page. I have not 'Vandalized' a thing as you have stated in your edit note. I have simply reverted the page to WP:QUO. The fact of the matter is WB/DC Films has scheduled release dates for particular films. Should/if they change that - then we can move Cyborg and Green Lantern Corps elsewhere.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, which you made under the fraudulent rationale of undoing "vandalism". If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did with your edits to Adam Hughes here and here, you will be blocked from editing.

Regarding your first edit, the information in the article comes directly from the sources cited for it. Regarding your second edit, you provided no rationale for how adding material not found in the cited source at the end of that passage, and removing the fact that the Wonder Woman statue was based on Hughes' cover for Wonder Woman #150, constituted "undoing vandalism". If you have a legitimate issue with the article's content, then open a discussion on the article's talk page, in which you can discuss the matter with other editors in a civil manner. Nightscream (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked
You've been blocked from Wikipedia for one week due to edit warring, and for incivility and personal attacks. Please do better. El_C 21:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you trigger the edit filter becuase of your persistent edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EGL1234 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Warning
Please don't revert someone after they remove your comments from their own talk page, especially if those comments are snarky and unconstructive, in the first place. Please don't fall into old habits. Not to sounds like a broken record, but please do better. El_C 08:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Instead of rushing to comfort each other and Warning me, have you looked at the mistakes that IJBall has made while exhibiting ownership on the Katherine McNamara page?70.112.229.80 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That argument should be advanced on the article talk page in a collegial, good faith manner. El_C 23:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please look at the talk page, then. Some errors have been around for YEARS because of the way he exhibits ownership over the page.70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to read the whole talk page with the hope I may find the (vague) errors you speak of. On Wikipedia, specific claims are back by equally specific evidence. El_C 01:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Start with the Johns Hopkins and Indiscretion film credits sections, then. He doesn't conduct basic research and reverses other people's edits without verifying that other people made not only good faith but also CORRECT edits. 70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Diffs or it didn't happen. Also, you should have learned how to indent by now. El_C 01:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be one message, not two. Anyway, here is his reversing another editor's CORRECT update for the Indiscretion film credits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_McNamara&type=revision&diff=950434501&oldid=950402306 .  Also, back in Jan 2016, user RedLiquorice added a Teen Vogue article about McNamara working on a master's degree in economics.  IJBall undid many/most of the additions but left that one in place, even though someone obtaining an upper-level academic degree is a major change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katherine_McNamara&type=revision&diff=702316688&oldid=702303771 .  When I attempted to update the information, he actually wrote, "It is sourced, and was true at the time."  Guess what?  He NEVER ACTUALLY VERIFIED this because sources as early as March and May 2016 disproved the Teen Vogue article.70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's something you should bring up on the article talk page so that other editors can weigh in. El_C 01:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I did, but he and I are the only ones who regularly post there. Anyway, I hope you realize that longtime editors are human beings, too. They have weaknesses and biases, just like people who don't edit regularly. Giving them benefit of the doubt is actually very dangerous because that gives them cover to make mistakes repeatedly and encourages bad behavior across broader categories of articles.70.112.229.80 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have reached an impasse on the article talk page, there are dispute resolution requests you can make use of to bring further outside input into the dispute. El_C 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)