User talk:Miss HollyJ

Orphaned non-free media (File:VictoriaLordOLTL.png)
Thanks for uploading File:VictoriaLordOLTL.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:StarrManningOLTL.png)
Thanks for uploading File:StarrManningOLTL.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

July 2018
Your recent editing history at Big Brother 20 (U.S.) 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 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 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. The Doctor Who (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not a moderator and have no authority to leave this message on my talk page. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You violated 3RR. Anyone as the authority to leave a warning message. Wikipedia does not have "moderators". The Doctor Who  (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are violating Wikipedia's guidelines on proper sourcing. And correct, I meant administrator. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how I'm violating. The statement is properly sourced. When an edit you make are reverted by multiple editors you don't keep reverting. Also, you still don't have to be an admin to leave warning messages.
 * You are violating the guidelines because you continue to revert my edits even though I've told you repeatedly that Wikipedia's guidelines prohibit tabloid sites and recaps to be used as sources. Miss HollyJ (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) That site is NOT a tabloid it is a TV network that Big Brother airs on in Canada. 2) If recaps weren't allowed that whole section would be non-existent. Example: Where the part about JC using the N-word is sourced as a recap of what happened in the live feeds (that specific portion just happened to receive media coverage). The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said Global was a tabloid site. That specific source from Global leads to a recap of the episode. It doesn't mention anywhere about how what Rockstar did resulted in a controversy from the public. The tabloid sites I'm talking about are the ones that list TMZ as a source. Miss HollyJ (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored the paragraph adding a better source along with the ones that were originally there pending discussion. If you wish to participate in further discussion about this topic it belongs on the article talk page and from here on I will ONLY participate in discussion about this topic there. Thanks! The Doctor Who  (talk) 06:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked over the source you provided and it doesn't say anything about a controversy. It's just an interview not an actual report. But I'm not going to challenge this any further because I already let you know that you should not be adding unreliable sources that go against Wikipedia's code of conduct. However, if it is challenged again by another user in the future and it results in your suspension the fault lies solely with you because they have proof here that you knowingly chose to leave information that wasn't properly sourced whilst engaging in edit wars. Speaking from experience here, since 2009. Miss HollyJ (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2018 (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. The Doctor Who (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment on the edit warring report. There may still be time for you to respond and promise to wait for consensus before reverting again. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Incident noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Computer40 «»  (talk)  01:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Milo Manheim. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Upper Arlington High School, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

February 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chad DiMera, you may be blocked from editing.  livelikemusic    talk!  23:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * What exactly did I do that was disruptive? Miss HollyJ (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The addition of information prior to it happening.  livelikemusic    talk!  16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not disruptive editing. Please don't falsely accuse me of anything again by leaving a template on my talk page or I will have to report you. Thanks. Miss HollyJ (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Holly J, it is disruptive, because it violates several policies and MOS of Wikipedia. Given your behaviour above — in other sections with other editors — you seem to take things a bit personally, when it isn't the case. The warning was left in good faith, as I am sure you were only attempting to provide information to viewers and other editors. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policies on civility and the assumption of good faith.  livelikemusic    talk!  19:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it warranted a warning on my page. All I did was add "19" to the duration part of the infobox (which is accurate by the way) three weeks ago. Also, by the looks of it other editors seem to have problems with your aggressive approach when it comes to revisions so I would suggest not abusing the warning templates to get what you want. Miss HollyJ (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Selena: The Series
Please stop reversing my edition. The "related" parameter is for to include related programs. And El secreto de Selena is a related program that tells Selena's life. Please see the template documentation. That both series have different writers and producers, is no excuse for not including El secreto de Selena to the infobox.--—  Bradford     (Talk)  03:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Telemundo series is not a related program at all. Just because it's about Selena does not mean it's related to the Netflix show. The Telemundo series was a fictionalized account that was not approved by family (producers) and the other (the film) actually had producers of the current series working there. Just because the Telemundo show had Selena as the main character does not mean it's related to the actual biopics. Miss HollyJ (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a related program. There are only two series about Selena, the Telemundo series, and the Netflix series. Both follow the same line, in different ways, but they are related programs. I told him before that the fact that they do not have the same producers or writers does not mean that they are not related programs. In addition, IMDb places it in its category as related series.--—  Bradford     (Talk)  06:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The only similarity they have is Selena as the main character. They have nothing to do with one another. The Netflix series and the movie are based on REAL LIFE accounts, telling the story of Selena as a child and her journey into adulthood and stardom. These are considered biopics. Both also share similar production crew. The Telemundo series is a sensationalized and fictional portrayal of her life made by completely different people. Perhaps, we can mention it somewhere in the article but to say it's related to the film or Netflix show is misleading. And IMDb's algorithm works based on similar movies/series with the same plotline, it doesn't necessarily mean they're related. For instance, we wouldn't call every single film, television series or documentary based on Elvis Presley "related" simply because they all focus on Elvis. We may suggest all of them to an Elvis fan if they were interested in watching Elvis content and that's what IMDb does, however, Wikipedia isn't a fan service. Miss HollyJ (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your statement is already something personal. You claim that the production of Telemundo and TNT is not a bioseries, but this source says otherwise. It is not something fictional that was invented overnight. The program follows Selena's death, evidently. But he also tells part of the Selena's story. The fact that you believe that it is something false is no excuse to withdraw the program from the infobox. I told him earlier that the related parameter is for to indicate programs that follow the same plot. They do not necessarily have to be the same plot. But, since there is only one series based on part of Selena's life, it is enough to be included.--  Bradford     (Talk)  13:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not listening. The Telemundo series does not follow the same plot as the Netflix series or the film. The only similar "plotline" is that it ends in her death. However, the Telemundo series focuses on tabloid stories rather than her actual life. The film and Netflix series focus on verified stories by producers, ranging from her childhood into adulthood. A sensationalized series does not belong in the infobox. Once again, I refer back to my Elvis analogy. Not all films, television series and documentaries related to Elvis are related just because they focus on Elvis. We can mention El secreto de Selena somewhere else in the article but not in the infobox, sorry. Miss HollyJ (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but El secreto de Selena was already included in the infobox before you started editing the article. His arguments do not convince me at all, he is only looking for absurd arguments to impose his edition. I told him before that the parameter "is for related programs", and the Telemundo production follow part of Selena's life. That it is not a program not authorized by the family does not make it an invented or fictitious production. If we rely on what you say we could also say that Su nombre era Dolores, la Jenn que yo conocí is a biographical series invented by Univision and has nothing to do with the life of Jenni Rivera. But Mariposa de Barrio yes is a reliable series that does follow Jenni Rivera's life. I'm sorry but your arguments remain absurd. According to the Jenni series. In the Univision version they characterized the singer a bit rude, and in Telemundo they characterized her friendlier and less rude. And that didn't make them different programs.--  Bradford     (Talk)  22:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello, I'm Hayman30. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverted again
I reverted your edit again and just wanted to say I'd be happy to discuss the terminology of "running" with you on that page's talk page. Instead of further reverts, lets hear what the other editor's opinions are and I promise I will go with the overall consensus, okay? thanks --Kwwhit5531 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See talk page. Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't like double reverting, so I thought it would be a good idea to get an opinion for some folks other thans us. I thinks its a good point that all the major newspapers are now using jogging in their headline, and now with an actual arrest, I have little problem with using the term "jogging" in the article, along as we make sure to make it clear that the events are still in dispute (as with any article concerning a criminal case were suspects have been charged but are awaiting trial, regardless of the preponderance of the evidence).

Important notice
—  Newslinger  talk   01:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity
Did you happen to have an old account by the name of CloudKade11? I spotted a new user just now repeatedly self-reverting themselves on the user's sandbox and since you made edits to the sandbox as well, I wanna make sure whether this may be a possible abandoned account of yours. Jalen Folf  (talk)  20:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is mine. I don't know that person reverting it. Miss HollyJ (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NateFord.png
Thanks for uploading File:NateFord.png. 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) 17:47, 29 May 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)