User talk:Smartallison

Welcome!
Hi Smartallison! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Age controversy cat
Hi there. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the Age controversy cat. A category is representative of the article - and that means if you want to cat it with age controversy, the article needs to make mention of an age controversy, difference or discrepancy. That isn't the case for many of your edits, and as such they're suitable for reversion.

If you think it's a valid cat - you need to add in detail of the age issue, not just claim it in an edit summary. Also bear in mind that IMDB is not a reliable source. Also see WP:RELIABLE. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You claim "article does not support cat" in the edit summary for each revert, but that's only the case in some instances here, not all. Look at the articles for Judith Evelyn, Tippi Hedren, Sondra Locke and Mike Douglas; the age discrepancy is already addressed on each of those pages. Would you please restore the cat on those pages and I'll work on improving the rest? Smartallison (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The article does not support that cat. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * All of the articles I mentioned do support that cat, as does Jessie Royce Landis. What else can I say other than, read them more carefully maybe? Smartallison (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a case of what else can you say, but what else can you do: You can update the articles to show that the cat is justified.  You even agree that some of your edits don't support the cat.  With regard to the Landis article, there is a sentence that says "Landis's appearance in North by Northwest earned her publicity for portraying Cary Grant's mother despite claiming to be nearly a year younger. Landis listed 1904 as the year of her birth. However, she had actually shaved eight years off her age. She appears in the 1900 U.S. Census as a 3-year-old born in November 1896; not old enough to be his (biological) mother" - this refers to a single incident regarding her age for a single role, not any controversy in a larger scale.  This is basically an early example of Dawson casting.  WP:UNDUE probably applies as well.
 * In short, for an article to support inclusion of the Age controversy cat, there needs to be sourced variations of the subject's age, either in the lede, or equivalent of an "Early life" section - preferably both. Not only that, but if you are challenged over edits, the correct response is to show and improve the challenged edits, not to reply with "read the article", or "yes it does".  Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How about those other 3 articles, do we agree the discrepancy is already addressed and justifies the cat? If so, I'd appreciate it if you self-reverted your revert(s). Smartallison (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Your recent editing history at Eva Gabor 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. Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Lee Majors. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 23:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)