User talk:SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong

October 2020
Your recent editing history at Dishonored 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.''I'm not taking sides in the issue this is just a warning as you are approaching the 3 revert rule by reverting another user twice and using edit summaries as a place for discussion. Please start a discussion on the article talk page and ping the other editor involved to resolve issue. Thank You.''   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    23:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the interest of fairness I've placed the same notice on both parties talk pages.   Alucard 16  ❯❯❯ chat?    23:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Eragon Plot Summary
Hello there,. I see that you wanted the plot to be shorter, and I have attempted to make it shorter, though I am not sure if I have succeeded very much. See Here my failed attempt. I apologise if I somehow appear to be in opposition to you trimming the plot of Eragon, but I just want the plot summary to not skip or mis-tell significant events.

––– [ Vedvod | My (bad) contributions to this site | Talk ] 00:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not that I want the plot to be shorter, it's that per WP:PLOTSUM, we should indeed trim the plot. The idea behind the plot summaries here is to go over the main story beats without going too much into the details. Honestly speaking, I used to prefer your in-depth approach, and that was, I think, the main approach here at Wikipedia till a few years back. In any case, don't take my trims personally, and rest assured, I don't take any offense to your changes either. That said, while I respect your wishes to tell a comprehensive plot, I think the summary can be trimmed a lot more, and will likely do more. If you wish, we can talk more about this on the article's talk page. But again, I stress, I take no offense to your changes, and even approve. Wikipedia is meant to foster these discussions, and you did well to reach out to me. SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Recent Edits on Demon Slayer: Kimetsu na Yaiba: Mugen Train
I noticed that you removed a section from the article. Since, I felt that your removal of content looks unnessecary so I came here to asked you why response of the directors of two popular anime film is not at good for the article. If you have any better way to change the section then continue. いちか かすが (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not that it is not good for the article. It's that in the way it is implemented, it's poorly written, and it seems to be merely bragging. One of the directors was approached in the street, and didn't say anything about the film, the other could just as easily be put in the section above. Sure, they made the previous highest-grossing movies, but with such lukewarm responses, is it really worth making a section out of, instead of just putting it in a paragraph? SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with you. If you can reform response from the directors in a better way, then please continue. After all the film has overtaken their masterpiece. I would further like to talk about adding public response also some more reviews from eiga, rotten tomatoes. Earlier, I have added the critical response section too. If you could help me in my edits then I would be grateful. いちか かすが (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At the moment, am swamped with work, but will help if I can. SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong (talk) 09:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. If my edits were too lengthy then please summarise them. いちか かすが (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do! SomeoneElseMightGetItWrong (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2021 (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) 01:45, 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)