User talk:Bice24

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello! and welcome to Wikipedia! New to Wikipedia? Introduction if you aren't then please read Privacy Policy and About Wikipedia! Please enjoy your day and happy editing! Beyonder (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)BeyonderGod

March 2016
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:Dylan O'Brien, 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. &mdash;Skyllfully (talk &#124; contribs) 15:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Dylan O'Brien, 2015.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Dylan O'Brien, 2015.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dylan O'Brien, 2015.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Dylan O'Brien, 2015.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. Majora (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Page Protection
Hi there! I noticed one of your edits included a request to semi-protect a page. Please repeat the request at WP:RFP if you haven't done so already. Thanks for contributing! –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon
Thank you for restoring some of my edit. I noticed this after I posted on the site's talk page. I won't revert now, as you added back in most of it. But what was inaccurate about the edit? Depauldem (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Deepwater Horizon (film). 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 lead to a blockage. Thank you.  { MordeKyle }  &#9762; 02:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning, and the explanation. I was unaware of the three revert rule and it was not my intention to edit war.

However, I would like to clarify that this anonymous user keeps adding content without an explanation despite my repeatedly explaining why their additions are being reverted, and their edits seem to take place only in that page; a lot of them, and all in the span of just a couple days. They keep adding actors and characters who were not billed in this film's credits (some of whom are not even credited on IMDb, I should add) to an already long cast list, as well as adding them to the plot summary, which in my opinion constitutes a series of irrelevant additions.

Also, I'm afraid to add it back again, but this sentence "The film received generally positive reviews, but grossed over $118 million worldwide against its budget of $156 million, making it a box office bomb" was not unsourced, or false. Budget is specified in the infobox. (I hope this doesn't appear as a recrimination or a demand, by the way. It was someone else who added that and I was merely correcting their wording.) And the version of the page you reverted back to had its mistakes (understandable, since it was a mess of reversions). If I edit it back to a good version once 24 hours have passed, with the appropriately billed cast, would it pose a problem and get me blocked? The current version of that cast list lacks actors who were actually billed in the film, and has over five actors who weren't.

I also want to ask if it would be time for this user to be blocked? Since they kept editing back even after your warning, completely ignoring anything that was said.

Thank you! Bice24 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: Went ahead and fixed the cast section at the same as I added a new nomination in the accolades section. Hope it's alright and this user doesn't keep reverting! 18:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Dylan O'Brien, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Craig Hammack
You can ask the creator of the page why the page was created with the name Craig Hammeck and not Craig Hammack. Wgolf (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Maze Runner (film)
Hello Bice24,

I have a question about the characters/themes sections that I have recently tried to add, but you keep deleting. I can understand how some of the information in the character analysis section wouldn't fit on a Wikipedia page, but what about the themes section? It seems appropriate, a lot of other Wikipedia articles have a themes section as well. It took me a great amount of time to write up this information, and now you're just going to say "none of this is necessary"? This information was an assignment that I had to do for a class in my University assigned by my professor, and it took nearly a month to complete. At least give me a nice reason as to why my information is "unnecessary". I am sorry, I just needed to let you know. Be nice and respect the time that other users have put into their work.

LOCNESS MONSTER (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, :


 * I most definitely understand the frustration of having content you've put a lot of effort in being deleted, especially when you can't see what's wrong with its inclusion and another editor keeps saying it doesn't go with what seems like minimal explanation. I've had that happen to me several times before, but you learn as you keep editing that there's certain common ground for what you should find in Wikipedia, so now I just let it go.


 * The reason why I argued it's not necessary is that it's undersourced and a little underdeveloped - not as an assignment, mind you (great job!, I hope you got a good mark), but we should be sticklers for as close to "objectivity" as you can get for Wikipedia; that means that for this type of content, involving analysis or opinion, you'd need a variety of articles that show it's at least commonly agreed among writers to justify its presence. This frustrated me a lot as well - you'll find that things you find to be common sense sometimes will be deleted by other editors and labeled as "self-content" (which is the term I was avoiding in my edit summary).


 * Also, the themes section, apart from the issues I already mentioned, reads rather more appropriate for the three films, and not just the first one, so you see why it's better not to include it.


 * But at the end of the day, I have no more authority than you do, so I suggest you open a section on the film's talk page to seek third-party consensus, if you still want it to be included. (But seriously, this all boggles down to the fact that the pages in which you find this type of content tend to be the typical "classics" for which there's been a lot of analysis and articles, not this type of film. Go around looking at other film pages and you'll see it's rare.)


 * Bice24 (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Locked with invalid entry
britt ja dylan eivät ole olleet yhdessä kuukausina, luettelossa olevat tiedot eivät ole oikeita. TMZ: lla on oikeat tiedot Enya Borjackwa (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

SPI opened. Feel free to comment.  General Ization Talk  16:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
Your recent editing history at Dylan O'Brien 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&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.  General Ization Talk  21:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)