User talk:Iamthemostwanted2015

NOTE: Please leave a message in my temporarily alternate account Iamthemostwanted2015x. Do NOT leave a message to this account, I am temporarily not using this account so I will not receive notification. I apologize for the inconvenience this might have caused.

January 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Entertainment Software Rating Board has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Entertainment Software Rating Board was changed by Iamthemostwanted2015 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882518 on 2015-01-17T17:38:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at ESRB. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: AO rating
No, what it's saying is that the ESRB has rarely issued the AO rating only because of violence, and that most of the AO games received the rating for their sexual content. That is what I meant. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
Hello, I'm overdraftfee. I've noticed that you recently reverted an edit of mine on the page Clash Royale, without recording a reason. Could you substantiate the reason for your reversion.Overdraftfee (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Overdraftfee! I am not the one who originally reverted your edit. You'd have to ask Mendaliv this as he or she is the one who originally reverted your edit. He left a reasons saying it was Both unreferenced and possibly comprising excessive detail for a VG article.. I reverted your edit because M told you there was an error. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and my bad grammar :(. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Your edits to "Millenium"
In the edit summary associated with this edit you promised to supply sources for your edits. Please do so at this time. If you need help putting the sources in a correct format for Wikipedia I'll be happy to help. Actually, I'm looking forward to seeing the sources, since the sources on this topic I've found so far aren't as good as I would like. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The source might not be very reliable, but so are the others sources the purists provided. Here: http://www.churchofreality.org/opinion/millen.htm

It's says here. "For the purists out there who think the millennium starts in 2001, you can't ignore these 11 days 6 hours that are skipped. That means the third millennium really begins on January 12th, 2001 at 6:00am Bethlehem time rather than on January 1st 2001 at midnight."

I know this source is not really reliable but neither are the other sources you allow like this one: http://americanindian.net/millennium.html

If you don't really like that source, message me and I'll find something else until you like it.


 * I'm not thrilled about your phrase "you allow like this one". I didn't write much, if any, of the article. It was written collectively by Wikipedia editors, including you. You shouldn't refer to a group that includes yourself as "you".


 * The source you mention, http://americanindian.net/millennium.html, is not cited in the article.


 * The source you mention, http://www.churchofreality.org/opinion/millen.htm, is not a reliable source, and even if it was, it doesn't support your edits.


 * Your edits are just wrong, which I will explain point by point.


 * "Those holding 2000 as the first year of the 3rd millennium (Including the 21st century) also argued that since the Gregorian calendar is misinformed about the birthdate of Christ, since Dionysius set Christ's birth at AD 1,"
 * A reliable source, Blackburn and Holford-Strevens, on pages 778-9, explain that Dionysius was commemorating the Incarnation of Jesus, and we don't know for sure if he meant the Annunciation (celebrated March 25) or the Nativity (celebrated December 25). And, we don't know if he meant to place the Incarnation in 2 BC, 1 BC, or 1 AD.
 * "they point out that date is arbitrary"
 * Arbitrary means the person setting a value knows he doesn't know the correct value, or doesn't consider it important to be precise, so sets a value knowing that the value may not be exact. We don't know Dionysius's thought process, so don't know if his choice was arbitrary or was a mistake.
 * "since the starting point of the calendar is Christ's birth, that would make 1997 the real start."
 * Blackburn and Holford-Strevens on page 772-6 review modern thinking on when Jesus was born, and mention values ranging from 18 BC to 4 BC. So it's wrong to imply it was definitely 4 BC.
 * In view of this I am reverting the edits. Jc3s5h (talk)


 * Blackburn, B. & Holford-Strevens, L. (2003). The Oxford Companion to the Year: An exploration of calendar customs and time-reckoning, Oxford University Press.

December 2000 and January 2001
December 2000 and January 2001 actually did respectively end the 20th century and 2nd millennium, and began the 21st century and 3rd millennium; so I have restored the facts you removed on the corresponding pages. Please do not remove the facts again. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't care lol. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

October 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Shameless (U.S. TV series), disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ChamithN  (talk)  18:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Iamthemostwanted2019


Does this user account belong to you? It was caught by an edit filter trying to edit your user page: Special:AbuseLog/20284570. clpo13(talk) 20:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I forgot the password but was finally able to recover. I’m using this account, my apologies. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
 * No worries. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't someone trying to impersonate you. clpo13(talk) 16:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing links from disambiguation pages
Please don't remove all/most of the links from a disambiguation page as you did at 2000s. They are not "definition" pages. Per MOS:DAB, they are "designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term" and "An entry with no links at all is useless for further navigation." By removing the links from entries, there is nothing left to direct readers to the correct page they are looking for. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And please include a link (only one blue link per entry) to the relevant article when adding an entry to a disambiguation page (as in 0S). Otherwise it defeats the purpose of directing readers to the correct Wikipedia page. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You are wrong for two reasons:

1. The century known as the 2000s runs from 2000 to 2099, it was perfectly accurate until you got rid of them. The millennium known as the 2000s runs from 2000 to 2999. This does not violate the MOS:DAB policy. Merely you’re just getting rid of the facts.

2. The 2000s and 21st century are not the same thing. I ask you read the articles before jumping conclusions.

Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
 * This has nothing to do with "accuracy" or "facts", it is about you going against the Wikipedia manual of style and removing all the links from a disambiguation page, thus making it useless. If the "definitions" or "facts" are inaccurate, then change it without removing the links, and if your "facts" have no relevant links, then they do not belong on a disambiguation page. I ask you to read MOS:DAB before editing disambiguation pages again. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The manual of style is just there to gives readers tips, not a policy. The disambiguation page treats the 2000 to 2099 period like it ain’t a century, anything an irrelevant pedant would say. But have it your quit, I quit this Wiki. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
 * No they are not merely "tips". They are guidelines that all editors should generally follow except in exceptional cases. If you think this is an exceptional case (it is not), then the onus is on you to make the case on the page's talk page and see if others agree. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edit to "Dionysius Exiguus"
I reverted your edit to "Dionysius Exiguus" because you removed an important bit of information: Dionysius "did not use it to date any historical event". The point of this phrase is that he did not assign an AD date to any event the date of which can be firmly established with historical records. To really nail down the epoch of the AD system it would have been necessary for Dionysius to state the AD month and year of an event that historians can unequivocally locate in time. An eclipse would have been ideal.

The phrase, as it stands, could be read to imply the Incarnation of Jesus was not an historical event. I don't think that's a fair reading of the whole paragraph, but some might see it that way. Maybe you think of a better way to phrase it that keeps the information without leaving any room for misreading. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Valid"
First off, you can't say that both are valid. If one is valid, the other is invalid. You can say that there are two viewpoints with supporting arguments, but not that there are two valid viewpoints. Second, the word isn't even needed there. It is a peacock word. Supporters of either viewpoint are likely to interpret it as a whiny assertion from the other side that that viewpoint is "true". --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Date formats and commas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Dates,_months_and_years

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion
Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=836654389&diff=prev reverted] my fix to 2nd millennium.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both  and one or more   referring to it. Someone then removed the  but left the , which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining  with a copy of the  ; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add  to your talk page.

NPOV on Common Era
I warn you to respect the neutral point of view policy at the Common Era article. Removal of the phrase " widely used around the world today" attempts to conceal the obvious, that this year is widely know around the world as 2018. Addition of the phrase "being based upon Christs birth" uses a title for Jesus that acknowledges him as the Messiah; any mention of him should be neutral. Furthermore, the statement is incorrect; it is unknown if the originator of the numbering system, Dionysius Exiguus, intended to commemorate the Incarnation (Christianity) or the Nativity of Jesus. In addition, the grammar is wrong.

Please read the entire article so that your edits do not introduce contradictions. Also please read the talk page and all of its archives. These issues have been extensively discussed in the past. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow, instead of just talking about your reasoning of my mistake, you decided to jump to a warning. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
 * I'm not sure about your mistakes, but this edit summary seems disingenuous.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Arthur, by that I kept telling him that no Christian uses the Gregorian calendar, if you want feel free to check out the dispute at Talk:Century. I thought his edit was that no Christian uses the Gregorian calendar, but I was wrong and I apologize for making a mistake. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

Millennium celebrations
In 1999, 2000, 2001. I think the lead, or a separate "millennium dispute" section before "Events", is more appropriate than January 1 or December 31 entries, for the exact dates of millennium celebrations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's just clarifying that most people held the start of the 3rd millennium and of the 21st century on January 1, 2000. Practically nobody did in 2001, except for a minority of pedants. That's why the paragraph: 'Some argued the actual start was a year later' was included. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

May 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Category:2000 introductions, you may be blocked from editing. Careless examples like this duplicate 21st century parents, when both 20th & 21st century parents existed prior to your edit.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)