User talk:Supermann/Archives/2017/August

Marking edits minor
I've noticed that you've recently made several edits that are substantial additions to articles but marked them minor. Per WP:MINOR, if there is any chance an edit may be disputed for any reason, and that does include things like adding entries to a list, or that an edit would need review, like adding even referenced information to an article, or adding references to an article to not mark it minor. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  02:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it. boss! Supermann (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And please cut it out with the "boss" thing, it's like annoying condescending and it makes me constantly feel like you're trying to pass off responsibility for things onto me. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  03:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please rewrite that rating lookup website sentence instead of removing it outright? Readers absolutely appreciates that url and find it has encyclopedic value. Why do you want to take away people's access to further knowledge? I just used it to verify what rating that Love (2015 film) finally got after censoring 170 seconds. Thanks.Supermann (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It being a valuable resource doesn't warrant it being mentioned in the body of the article? The body content of articles is to summarize information, not to act as a directory of links to resources for readers, and if all there is to say about it is "it is a useful place to look up ratings" than it doesn't merit mentioning in the body. Like, you can't use citations to point people at resources. That's not what referencing is. But, I'll add it to the external links section. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  04:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool. thanks. have a good night.Supermann (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Alex ShihTalk 03:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Partially inaccurate
China banned just Chinese Wikipedia from appearing online. Most of readers from China surf to English Wikipedia probably since the ban. --George Ho (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice try . You forgot to see the line on the report: China (0.6% share of global total). That's pathetic for a country with 1.3 billion people and 731MM internet users. Ooops. And then from the traffic analysis: Page Edits Per Country - No data available / Page Edits Per Wikipedia Language - No data available... Supermann (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to a community editing restriction
Per community consensus in this discussion at ANI, you are topic-banned from all pages related to film for one year. Interpretation of this is generally at admin discretion, but "pages" is intended to cover all Wikipedia namespaces, not just articles. GoldenRing (talk) 06:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Warning
This violates your topic ban. The ban specifies all pages, not just articles. That means you cannot post on talk pages either. Were IAR not one of the five pillars, I would block you right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry. didn't know talk page falls into the ban as well. I would shut up on talk page now. But I have also filed for arbitration, in case you don't know. Thanks. Supermann (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw and commented there already. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a question about the formatting of your request for arbitration. The thread is Misformatted arbitration case?. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)