User talk:DisuseKid

Welcome!
Hello, DisuseKid, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 13:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

DisuseKid, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

Red links
Hi! I read the summary to your revert.

Please consider that red links are often a good thing. The purpose is to encourage article creation. We want people to write an article about the area library system. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Then someone needs to create an article of it first before it can be put in, otherwise it will never be done. DisuseKid (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's circular reasoning. There is a reason why red links exist. Red links say "an article doesn't exist here yet, but it should! Create me!" People can, and do, create articles when they're spurred on by red links. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of my edit on jurassic world
Excuse me but why did you just do that? Wkc19 :) (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion on Charleston church shooting
You win, deletion Nazi. I'll do something fun while you delete good edits for no reason except ego. I see you Ok, don't you have video games to play? deleted my recent additions to the 'manifesto' section, which I inserted after the recommendations of an admin, MelanieN. Although it duplicates material on Dylann Roof, some users feel this context is necessary and we are trying to reach consensus. Would you care to weigh in on the Talk page? &mdash;Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You deleted my entry on Chattanooga, despite citations. You said the figure I used, Evangelist Franklin Graham, is not notable. This is opinion, as he is notable for his statements and in many news outlets. I hope we can reach an agreement.

July 2015
Your recent editing history at Jurassic World 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&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. JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2015 (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. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have broken the WP:3RR rule at Jurassic World, per Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you respond and agree to stop warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest commenting in the above-linked AN/EW thread rather than here, for the record. Thanks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! - 220  of  Borg 02:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Category removal at Charleston church shooting
Why do you think your edit summary has anything to do with the categories? Also, heads up that you are now at three reverts, and with your account being reviewed at EW/N a fourth would likely result in a block even for a minor violation. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see this is part of a mass removal; please stop and get consensus first. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Civility
Please avoid making comments like these. They violate the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:CIVIL and don't do anything to promote collaborative editing. Thanks. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Your recent editing history at 2012 Aurora shooting 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&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.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for 2015 Chattanooga shootings
I applaud your efforts on this article. Do me a favour: can you nominate this article to be promoted to "Did you know" project? It won't be featured In the news, but you might have enough time to nominate it for DYK. I can't do it myself without reviewing another article, so I figured that you haven't done DYK before and may be able to have it promoted without trouble. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't know how to do that, though. I'm just here to edit. DisuseKid (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For rules, go to WP:DYK. For process, go to template talk:did you know and insert "2015 Chattanooga shootings" in the box, which is above "Create nomination" button. Alternatively, you can go to Main Page and click "Nominate an article", so you'll go to the same page. Still confused? You're welcome to ask me. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it for DYK on your suggestion. Any alternate hook suggested? Faizan (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Section editing preferred
When you edit an article you should use the "Edit" link at the top of the section you wish to edit. It makes it difficult to track edits and significant changes when you click the primary edit link at the top of the page and bring the entire article into the work area and make changes to multiple sections. grifterlake (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Vertical citations.
I also used to wonder. Turns out, people copy and paste the templates. I suppose they're vertical there just to show the fields better. Thanks for shrinking those, they can get in the way. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

There are various home-grown software tools for creating references and I always assumed that was the format chosen by whoever created one of those tools. One of the tenets of the Wikipedia culture: personal freedom trumps consistency. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reply on Plot section
"But the shawarma scene was not mentioned in the plot section." I only mentioned that part from "The Avengers" as a visual example compared to something regarding importance in the film's plot! I didn't literally put it in the plot section for Jurassic World, though at the same time I'm really Outraged as to what's important to the film and what's not important especially if it's a mid-credit or post-credits scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw the header.
It said "Motive". I don't get it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You said this in your edit summary: "The first one should always be in full, then the initials." The header had the first mention of the full name and then the initials. That's what I meant. DisuseKid (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you mean the first paragraphs of the article, that's the lead. Headers are the section titles. If you don't mean that, I still don't get it.
 * I don't know if it's a written rule, but it seems standard to introduce terms (Wikilinks and initials) in the lead and the body. The lead's more of a short version of the whole article than the beginning of it. But if you think the mention in the lead counts as the first mention, then the one you changed shouldn't be linked, either. Just plain FBI.
 * I don't really care, just a bit confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I meant the lead. DisuseKid (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson
If you are going to remove the citations from the lead of this article, please be sure to restore the citations elsewhere in the article in such a way as to source the information that appears in the lead. For example, Anderson's birth date as well as the actual date and circumstances of the abduction are now completely unsourced.  General Ization  Talk   03:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we need to have a talk. The right approach to this situation is not to remove content (e.g., a birth date) as unsourced when you were the one who removed the otherwise valid sources from the content.  You can either restore it to the lead (citations in the lead are actually not at all uncommon), or you can reintroduce the content and its source somewhere else in the article.  But you should not remove the content (which in this case is relevant and significant as it confirms the victim's age at the time of the abduction).  General Ization   Talk   03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't know where to put it. There wasn't supposed to be any citations in the lead. DisuseKid (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

removing references
Why are you removing references from the leads of articles? Did you just decide on your own to ignore what has been done for many years now, and is done in every article on Wikipedia, and do it your own way instead?  D r e a m Focus  03:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * InedibleHulk kept doing it to the articles he's edited on, and I believe someone mentioned some policy on Wikipedia that I forgot. DisuseKid (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't know what or where a policy is, you probably shouldn't make edits that are supposedly based on it, even if you think it exists somewhere or you've seen someone else do it. The guidance is at WP:LEADCITE, but this is talking about redundant citations in the lead. Read that guidance and you will see that it does not call for removing citations that already exist in the lead of any article (except by consensus).  General Ization  Talk   03:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since it appears you've done this to at least a few and possibly numerous articles (e.g., 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree), I strongly urge you to go back and revert yourself wherever you've done it, since the same situation you created at the Anderson article may now exist at those articles. (Unless you can confirm that all of the formerly cited information in the lead is properly cited somewhere else in the body of the article. It may be simpler and faster to just revert.)  General Ization   Talk   03:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Between  D r e a m Focus  and myself, I think we've reverted most of the edits where you made this mistake; or at least the ones where you did so recently, so reversion was still a practical option.  Please go back and review your editing history and look for any we missed.  Note that some constructive edits you made along with removing citations may have been lost in the process.  General Ization   Talk   03:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

In case it helps to retrace your steps, I reverted your removal of citations from the leads of:
 * 2015 attack on Dallas police
 * 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder
 * Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings
 * 2013 Santa Monica shooting
 * 2013 Alabama bunker hostage crisis
 * United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)
 * Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
 * 2012 Seattle cafe shooting spree

DF reverted:
 * 2015 Chapel Hill shooting
 * Boston Marathon bombing
 *  General Ization  Talk   04:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Making the same type of edit to many different articles can look WP:POINTy. Please don't do this without discussion on the talk page first.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree with that, based on lengthy discussions in public talk venues. The consensus was that if the edits are good ones, making them widespread is not only allowed but a Good Thing. If they are disputed, you can and should discuss rather than edit warring, but there is certainly no requirement to discuss first. The problem here wasn't that they were widespread but that they were not sound edits. Obviously, widespread unsound edits are worse than a few unsound edits. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment just got here after watching a few articles. WP:LEADCITE states "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none" - the lead sections tend to be written and re-written as the story breaks, and to avoid editors warring over emerging details that are later corrected then refs are often used in the lead. I'd prefer if these are just left to avoid edit wars over the lead section in future. -- Callinus (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming in context that all three of the comments above pertain to original series of edits by DisuseKid that removed citations from the leads of multiple articles, not the series of reverts last night that restored them. Just wanted to clarify, since your comment seemed (primarily due to placement) to be directed to me rather than to DK.  General Ization   Talk   12:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to see you're still calling it a "header", but your citation removals seem generally fine to me. This stuff should be sourced in the body only, and summarized neatly up top. Quotations are the exception. Nothing that isn't sourced in the body should ever be said in the lead, controversial or not.
 * One thing to watch out for is citations that start in a "ref name=something". Before deleting those, find a citation that invokes it ("ref name=something/") and replace that with the full one. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for 2015 Chattanooga shootings
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Bbb23 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)