User talk:Grandpallama/Archive 3

Dave
Sorry about that: I was trying to make the definition clearer but I absolutely see your point. TashTish (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * TashTish, no worries. Happy editing! Grandpallama (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Edits on Jerry Maguire
Grandpalla you reverted my edits on the film Jerry Maguire. The actor I added gets royalty payments from this film. Fred3337 Fred3337 (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No one by that name is credited in the film, and certainly not the Scottish theologian you have now twice linked to. Grandpallama (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Nothing posted was incorrect, and I have documentation,royalty checks listing the film. I can’t speak to the reason why the film did not list the credit. What are the rules regarding film credits. If the information can be documented that SAG member was in the film, what else is required by wikipedia.Fred3337 (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:V and WP:RS and direct any further discussion to the article's talkpage. Thanks. Grandpallama (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

user:Gingersnap Jr.thefourth
Thanks for the SPI on that user. IT was a new one for me so I didn't recognize the behaviour. Meters (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meters, no problem. I forget where/when I first stumbled upon them, but they're easy to identify once you've encountered them. Grandpallama (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added it to my list of SPIs so I'll recognize it next time. Meters (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Meters, ha! "Films and user page stupidity" pretty much sums it up. :) Grandpallama (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Your recent editing history at Nocturnal Animals 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&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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Sundayclose, edit warring is you ignoring the WP:BRD process so that you can push through preferred edits despite opposition from other editors. Dropping a template on my page is not a good look when you are the one who needs to gain consensus. Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring can exist regardless of whether an edit is right or wrong (as long as it's not vandalism). You are edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sundayclose, I think you need to take a look in a mirror. Grandpallama (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just looked in the mirror. That didn't change your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Time for you to stop posting to my talkpage just for the purpose of being combative. Please don't do so again. Grandpallama (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You were right about User:PickledEick. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Drmies, as well as for the page protection. Big relief! Grandpallama (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Jinnifer report
If you have any additional comments or evidence to add, (since you are more familiar with this likely sock than I am), I made a report here. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. They're a well-known nuisance, minimal evidence required. :) Grandpallama (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Zinnober9, I went ahead and weighed in. Grandpallama (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

BaylanSP
Hi. That editor who denounced me for editwarring is now bludgeoning his way through the talk page of Theodosius I and is refusing to engage in dialogue with other editors who have replied to him. He does not know how to use indent, he writes one-sentence paragraphs, and his posts have already taken up a sizable amount of the talk page. Is there anything do be done here? I'm sorry if this is not something you want to involve yourself in further, and, if that's the case, let me know so I won't bother you further. Avilich (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My first piece of advice is to just wait. No admin has weighed in at the noticeboard yet (though now that BaylanSP has participated in a talkpage discussion, I expect it will be closed with no result), and at Theodosius I, they have failed to gain consensus (I count three editors, including you, opposing their changes, and no one supporting). They can ignore editors at the talkpage all they want, but without consensus, if they try to reinstate their edit, it will be clear-cut edit warring. It's probably not appropriate for me to get involved there directly, as I've already dealt with the editor at Joaquin Phoenix, followed up with them on their own talkpage, commented at ANEW, and now participated in a talkpage discussion at Arabs that involved reverting a lede change they made.
 * My second piece of advice is to always let edit warriors dig their own holes. It can be easy to get combative or snarky (I see your "LOL" comment), and I was guilty of a bit of that on BaylanSP's talkpage myself, but if the editor is acting in good faith, they will come around. If they are acting in bad faith, they'll almost always flame out on their own, in which case you don't want to be seen as having escalated things by tweaking their nose. Like I said, consensus is against them, and the onus is on them to prove the need for the change; unless there's a rapid change in participation on the talkpage, that doesn't look forthcoming. Grandpallama (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and regards. Avilich (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Avilich Grandpallama (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, well, so this is a hole that goes very deep, as far back as 2018. Though I briefly wondered whether I'd hear more of him, I took his ill-conceived foray at ANEW to mean he was more a novice than anything else. Thanks for the heads-up. It seems the situation is already under control there. Avilich (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit war with UASG
Hello. I noticed your message on Jerodlycett's talkpage and decided to ask you about this issue. Jerodlycett was the one who warned UASG about their activity on the same page where we're currently having a slow burn edit war. I have no experience in dealing with such issues in English Wikipedia in particular, so I wanted to ask you to suggest what could be the fasted way to resolve the situation. You can notice that information added by me is being deleted and referred to as "fake", meanwhile it was literally the only referenced data in the whole article. --Мурад 97 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You should probably consult with an admin. My advice would be to restore the stable version, and then open a discussion on the talkpage, inviting the other user to join and explain their edits. If no explanation or discussion is forthcoming, but the user reverts again, definitely follow up with an admin. Grandpallama (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Grace Randolph
Hello Grandpallama, you might remember me from my edit on Grace Randolph. I was just wondering why you decided not to report ChromaticaCali to the administrators for edit warring and breaking the three revert rule. I was gonna do it myself but as I'm a new editor i don't really know how. I feel like editors like that who edit based on personal beliefs are the worst and wikipedia will be better off without them. Let me know what you think.✌️ Jaconsarto (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor didn't break 3RR, asked how/where to open a discussion, and did so when I directed them; that is not edit warring behavior. But I'll warn you that editors like that...are the worst is a personal attack, too. Neither of you is looking great in that department, and given the poor reasoning of the AfD nom (from a week-old account!), ChromaticaCali's concerns about your motivations are reasonable. Grandpallama (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I addressed this earlier but as a new editor i thought it was ubsurd that a BLP didn't have a birth date and that's the main reason i put it up for deletion. But the editors at the deletion discussion made me aware that there are a lot of articles of BLP who don't have birthdays. I wasn't aware of that before as it wasn't part of the BLP guidelines and i had never seen an article of a BLP without it. It was a lack of knowledge on my part. As for the personal insult, yeah that was immature of me. Thank you for explaining Grandpallama. Jaconsarto (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent rv by anons
Hi, if you have turned rv notifications on, you may have noticed that some random IP have rved some of your edits that rved edits by a blocked user, I agfed and assumed the editor has no connection with the blocked IP and happened to stumble upon the edits, you may think otherwise so here's the anon that I was talking about and I'll leave it up to you, I personally think we should AGF but the edits are a little bit hard to find unless you go specifically looking for them.  Just ' i ' yaya  15:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Justiyaya, I do have notifications turned on, but thanks for the friendly heads up. Both IPs are block evasion by . Grandpallama (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way--this sock is why the Wind River article has pending changes protection in the first place. :) Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, just a bit confused because I assumed a larger difference in terms of the numbers in the IPv4 address meant the IPs are from different places... turns out that's not the case, thanks for the correction and the clarification  Just ' i ' yaya  17:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Horror film article
Hey Grand. I basically agree with you on your statement about ignoring the banned editor. I just know he approaches nearly everyone who tackles the article and in doing so, some people will do what they request. On that note, I basically wanted to have a response on the talk page of why we are not doing it, so we can revert other people assuming good faith. Perhaps I should have phrased it without addressing the editor. Do you think I should just delete my post (and in turn, your response?) or just re-phrase it? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Andrzejbanas, I've been on vacation, so apologies for the late reply. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with your intention, and having something about it on the talkpage isn't a bad idea. I do think it would best be done without referencing the editor, and definitely without addressing them directly. That just encourages them to persist, I suspect. Grandpallama (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ChromaticaCali sketchy user history
Hi, I just wanted to bring to your attention that I feel like ChromaticaCali's history is very sketchy. All 20+ of their edits are related to removing criticism at Grace Randolph and calling everyone who adds it trolls. I don't know if this is worthy of a ban or anything but I just wanted to point out that it feels odd that they haven't edited a single page except Randolph's, and came out of 2 months of inactivity the day I added more information to Randolph's "controversy" section.--Taynix (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. Grandpallama (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm simply a fan who doesn't appreciate slander from Twitter filtering to her Wikipedia page which is SUPPOSED to be neutral. I removed the Pajiba stuff because it is baseless, but I left up the firing by Marvel and James Gunn section to be fair. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChromaticaCali (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey, I was very fair and left some things while only removing the items from the very questionable source. That you didn't take a look at my actual edit is really unfair and uncool.  I went through a lot of effort to be fair and to source my corrections. I know you're upset with me, but please don't knee-jerk reverse my edits when I'm putting a lot of care into them. ChromaticaCali (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * One more thing to add, here the user is suggesting removing the entire controversy section altogether for no reason. That does not seem to be in any way neutral.--Taynix (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sock work
Excellent work uncovering a Madreterra sock. Bravo! Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Merry


★Trekker (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to air this in the thread
In regards to the "someone else" bit, what I said on my talk wasn't entirely truthful. I was fully planning on copyediting and correcting the grammar in the article, and every other problem it had once I got it to a "good enough state" for mainspace, like I did with every other article of mine that I moved to mainspace (over time and later on, of course). Of course, someone planning an overhaul/complete rewrite may get in the way of that. I didn't want the editor to feel discouraged. Sorry if I unintentionally caused you any distress at all. DarmaniLink (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)