User talk:Historyday01/Archive 2

Orphaned non-free image File:Elisabeth Holzleithner at the European Lesbian Conference 2017 - repost.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Elisabeth Holzleithner at the European Lesbian Conference 2017 - repost.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh no... I'll find something. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2020–Present
 * added a link pointing to OAD
 * List of gay characters in anime
 * added a link pointing to OAD

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of adult animated internet series
 * added a link pointing to AFP
 * The Adventures of Baxter and McGuire
 * added a link pointing to AFP

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Middle School Moguls. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * 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.


 * @Magitroopa, I would not say that my edits were "unconstructive" or "disruptive," but rather they were constructive. I just have to disagree with you on that assessment. In any case, shouldn't sources be last name, first name? I mean, I get that there is an author field, but last name, first name works better, especially since every other source on the Middle School Moguls page is ordered that way. Per the TemplateData section of Cite web, using last name, first name is preferred. It also lists "Most commonly used parameters in horizontal format" the following for "Most commonly used parameters in horizontal format": "cite web |url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=". That is the format I chose. Historyday01 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of LGBT characters in television and radio, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gary Green and Ian Alexander.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Bolaris2003strip.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bolaris2003strip.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 04:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that one is a lost cause, as it falls into this category File copyright tags/Deprecated, so it will probably be deleted. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Cosplaybeanjuly2019.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cosplaybeanjuly2019.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 04:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Same as for the other one, as it falls into this category File copyright tags/Deprecated, too so it will probably be deleted. Historyday01 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2010–2014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of transgender characters in film and television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Desert Sun.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nimona
Bummer. It looked rather good. I read some of the comic and loved it. Starzoner (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was my thought too. I really loved the comic as well. I hope that some other studio picks it up in the future, but with Stevenson working on the upcoming Lumberjanes series now, she might focus on that and accept that the film won't be made. Hard to say. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the MFD isn't the correct choice. I meant it as a consideration for removal as the film is basically dead in the water. Perhaps you and I can agree it can be replaced over the redirect Nimona (film) or Nimona (cancelled film), or better yet, converted to a redirect. Starzoner (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. I can agree that can be converted to a redirect. Historyday01 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll convert it after the MFD ends. Starzoner (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * done. Starzoner (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 16
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Media portrayals of transgender people
 * added links pointing to Glee and Dominique Jackson
 * Mira, Royal Detective
 * added a link pointing to Mysteries

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Adachi and Shimamura
 * added a link pointing to Symbolic
 * Re: Cutie Honey
 * added a link pointing to Yuri

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Because you thanked me
17:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) JeanSplicing (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

JeanSplicing, it's my pleasure! I try to thank people on here as much as I can. Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 06:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I already addressed it and apologized. But thanks for notifying me. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Close Enough
I have been watching Close Enough on HBO Max, and I remember the character talking about a character named Stellan and Timothy specifically uses the pronoun "he" at least twice. I don't believe you will find any articles discussing it, but I think you should watch the series and you will see. Tyler Michael Mannix (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's fair. A lot of shows are like that now, so that's why I didn't remove the entry or anything. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BNA: Brand New Animal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBR.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Nimona (film)
Regarding this, I just realized they had been trying to shop the film to other places. seeing that, I kind of felt like moving the article-turned-redirect to mainspace to be a bit hasty. Should I rename it back to draft? Starzoner (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait until the film is confirmed to be moved to another studio. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Asexual characters
I don't understand what "source" is needed here. It's the plot of the film. Isn't the film the source for the plot of the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camipco (talk • contribs) 19:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Which page are you talking about here? --Historyday01 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Sugar
This is sort off-topic, but I actually interviewed Rebecca Sugar about a year ago for a project I was working on. She answered a question I had about Bubbline, but I wasn't able to use the quotes because CN said no at the last minute. If you're curious, shoot me an email, and I can share it.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. I'd love to see that. I didn't see your email on your user page, though, unless I missed it. Did you see that Vanity Fair piece where Sugar (who uses they/them and she/her pronouns now) said that she put her life experiences into the character of Marceline? There's more in the piece than that, but that is one of the best parts. I just requested you on LinkedIn too. I went through a bunch of pages (like this one) and finally found your email. Whew. Cool that you work in libraries too. I'll send you something in the next day or so. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool! I sent an email! Libraries unite.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)  12:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh definitely, for sure. --Historyday01 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queerbaiting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion 1
Your recent editing history at List of fictional asexual characters 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. VAXIDICAE💉 16:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to get involved in an edit war. I am going to post about this shortly on the talk page of the article. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you should probably restore my edit and engage on the talk page, where conversations about inclusion of content happen because you're well over 3rr now. VAXIDICAE💉  16:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just posted on the talk page already, Praxidicae, and mentioned you. You were just a bit hasty. Historyday01 (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Tillie Walden into On a Sunbeam. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already made an edit summary attributing the original page so there is no need to do anything further on your part. Do just keep this in mind for future edits. Regards. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The burden isn't on you to add citations to other people's additions, but it is on you to not delete content as a default response right after it was added unless you actually believe it is erroneous, and not shut down new contributors who you just met and were trying to help improve an incomplete article in good faith. You come across as very hostile and the article you linked me to in fact says things like "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." and "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Digitamer2 (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Digitamer2
 * Reversing the contributions one time and asking for reliable sources seems justified to me. It isn't "hostile" to remove content from any page. I'm sorry you didn't like how I did it, but the ends justify the means. I take a very hard line when it comes to the addition of unsourced entries on LGBTQ pages especially, as many such pages have problems with lots of unsourced entries, and will not hesitate to remove them as necessary. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion 2
Your recent editing history at List of LGBT characters in radio and podcasts 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. VAXIDICAE💉 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, telling an editor to "do something else with their life" is inflammatory and can be taken as a personal attack. VAXIDICAE💉  18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can say that, but I stand by that comment. I don't know why you want to remove entries from LGBTQ pages. It seems pretty punitive. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't. Wikipedia isn't a fan directory, it's for encyclopedic topics. Every single LGBTQ character from every work is not encyclopedic. We're not a compendium of everything that ever existed and your behavior is quite frankly getting disruptive, if you continue to add cruft to lists, I will request a topic ban at ANI. VAXIDICAE💉  18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Most of the stuff on lists I DO NOT add (i.e. it is already there), let's be honest. Historyday01 (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You have edit warred repeatedly to restore it after I explained - based in our own policy, community consensus, norms and guidelines, and yet you persist in re-adding it. It's the same thing. My point being, if you continue to do this and revert constructive edits to restore poorly or unsourced content that is unencyclopedic to lists like this, I will request a topic ban at ANI. You adding them originally is irrelevant. VAXIDICAE💉  18:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Historyday01, you've hit and passed the point where you need to stop edit warring and start discussing things. This potentially needs discussion outside of the article talk pages, as clearly it's spread over multiple pages that don't have a lot of talk page watchers. However, there is precedent across many different article types that indiscriminate lists, in particular "Lists of...", should not have redlinked/non-notable entries. It doesn't matter if the content was added an hour or a year ago, either; sometimes things fall through the cracks and only get noticed when someone like Praxidicae notices one article and then realises there are a string of them that need updating. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you more that I would like to discuss this more, but only on the specific pages, you have edited, and none beyond this. I don't disagree with you that many pages need entries that are notable enough to have on the relevant lists. And I have, in the past, attempted to limit the entries listed. Historyday01 (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's clear something up
Per your last comment here you seem to be under the wild misconception that contested content cannot be removed until it's discussed. That is not our policy, that is not a community norm nor is it a guideline. The fact that it's a page relating to LGBTQ+ does not mean it has special considerations for removal. As told you when they took you to ANI a month ago, the onus is on you to source content and to explain why, per our policies and norms, it should be included. Crossroads was correct when they told you quality over quantity and I hope you take all of this advice to heart because if you continue down this path of filing frivolous noticeboard reports and bludgeoning every discussion, my next response to you will be in the form of filing a request at WP:ANI for a topic ban if not an outright block. VAXIDICAE💉 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The dispute I had with Crossroads had no bearing on this discussion. I did not want to file a noticeboard report, but I felt compelled to, based on your activity. I wish you the best on your future Wikipedia editing. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)