User talk:WhereTheLinesOverlapXX

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Paramore. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 03:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry if you took my edits the wrong way, but i reverted everything because the deletion of a list format made it look scruffy and unco-ordinated, ill admit that it was ignorance on my part that changed the genres, i didnt see that it was then alphabetical...sorry about that, but i put back in links and information they for no reason deleted and changed a title format to make it noticeable. even if their edits were in good faith, i dont see why im being accused of vandalism...--WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not accusing you of vandalism. I only ask that before you accuse other editors of vandalism, you consider whether the edits you are reverting were made in good faith. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 17:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i didnt, i said possible vandalism, i wasnt sure, the nature of the edits just seemed so pointless and they deleted information, so it seemed so. i didnt say it was definite, and anyway, there are some edits in their that shouldnt be, even if some they did were right, that theyve put right back! --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AND whether or not they were in good faith or not, doesnt change the fact that they did need reverting which has been out right back!!! and sorry, but what authority are you on this? (dont mean to be rude but...ahem?) --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 17:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Paramore. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Diffs    My actions probably haven't been the most appropriate in this situation either, and I'll be taking a bit of a wikibreak later today. TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 22:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

ill comply, however i seem to be the only one who has got the warning? will you be blocked as well for being a part of this or is it just me because youre the one who just sent that message above? --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally, no one will be blocked, and we can work towards a consensus on this topic. I've requested a third opinion to aid in this endeavour. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 17:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Red links
Red links aren't bad things. They indicate what articles might need to be written. Please see more at WP:REDLINK. Dismas |(talk) 11:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i assumed that they were there because no one realised there wasnt a page for it...ill remember that for future editing. but am i right in keeping broken links out of filmography tables? or does that count as the same thing? --WhereTheLinesOverlapXX (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It counts as the same thing basically. If the film is worth noting in a filmography, then it's probably notable enough for an article and therefore should be linked.  You can check Notability (films) for notability requirements for films.  Criteria one (full reviews by at least two nationally known critics) is usually pretty easy to satisfy.  Dismas |(talk) 00:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Mike moral  ♪♫  17:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Rachelle Lefevre
Yeah, I couldn't verify the film. There's nothing listed at IMDB that confirms it and I see nothing in the Lefevre article about it. We don't list unconfirmed roles and in general, we don't list future films unless it can be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't verify she's in it, and I can't verify the former title. This sort of thing happens all the time and we have to be vigilant to get rid of unconfirmed and unverified "roles". Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd venture to ascribe it to wishful thinking. Aren't there other Twilight people in it? This is one of the primary reasons that we don't add films roles until they are ready for release or there are reliable sources floating around. Some one or another says "I'd like to be in that" or maybe even auditioned. Doesn't make it confirmed! Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Twilight
I'm concerned because in looking at the edit patterns on those articles, the issue of ownership came to mind. I explained to you that we follow the IMDB status and yet you charge back in to revert or change the status to your interpretation rather than what is given on the film. I'm also concerned because I noted that you left this edit summary, which incorrectly alleges that "we use the term 'awaiting release' its not completed until its been released", which as I noted I'd like to see where you got that assumption. I'm also concerned about this edit summary that says "please leave in with IMDB as a non-entered source and discuss it before another deletion". I clearly told you that in order to add future films, that a reliable source outside of IMDB was required, yet you are asserting that it is not necessary. You can't make up the rules as you go. The standards for verifiability and the need for reliable sources are quite clear. As for the inappropriate 3RR warning, you are aware you were warning the editor about 3RR issues, which clearly you actually violated yourself. Leaving a 3RR warning in that case was inappropriate and should never be done without good cause, you could actually cause someone else to be inappropriately blocked. It's quite a serious charge and it certainly looked like you were trying to intimidate the other editor with warnings and threats. If you are having a dispute, the correct thing to do is try to discuss it, not give out false warnings. Your warning should be removed from that talk page. As for my looking at your edits, it is entirely proper to do so when an editor comes across problematic edits that don't follow sourcing, editing and behavioral guidelines. I noticed you reverted my correct note that the next Twilight film was "completed" rather than "awaiting release" and thus I looked at other edits you made. I'd refer you to WP:HOUND which clearly says "Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." There was nothing improper about looking at your edits when I looked and saw the improper 3RR warning. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly is easy to get swept away by everything here. I was just trying to explain and show you that there are guidelines for all of this that must be followed. I don't want to see you leave Wikipedia, just want you to know the requirements for different things and maybe understand a bit why things are as they are. Once someone learns the need for reliable sources and learns to negotiate the guidelines, this can be a great place. But it's important to remember that this isn't a battlefield and understanding editing and behavioral guidelines are tantamount to having a good experience. I'd recommend reading those guidelines and learning rather than just leaving. This can actually be a fun place if you let it be. Cheers. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Yellow handkerchief 2010 film release poster.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Yellow handkerchief 2010 film release poster.jpg. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)