User talk:Aardwolf68

Welcome!

Hello, Aardwolf68! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Adding unsourced material

Please source all material you add to Wikipedia. You contributed substantially to the critical reception section of No.6 Collaborations Project with this edit, but none of what you added has a source. Per WP:V, all your contributions must be verified by reliable sources. Thanks. Ss112 08:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Recovery (Eminem album). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proveit - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bebe (6ix9ine song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stoopid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Scorpion (Drake album), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

I've seen you adding "~aardwolf68" after your discussions. Be sure to follow the steps above so editors know it's your comments. Thus far, your comments have been signed by a bot. –ToxiBoi! ^(contribs) 04:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fiend is a "he" not an "it"

Regarding this edit at Super ShowDown (2020), you changed The Fiend from being a he to an it. Please stop. Even in kayfabe, The Fiend is a he. The phrase is "Let Him In". When Wyatt is playing his Fun House character, he always refers to The Fiend as him. WWE articles also refer to The Fiend as a he. --JDC808 ♫ 07:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Universal Championship

Please stop reverting. You are reverting everything that shows the correct number of days. Your reasoning is for The Fiend's reign, but you're reverting more than just that. Your reasoning for The Fiend's reign is also a moot point. --JDC808 ♫ 20:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I admitted that I should've mentioned the Roman edits as well, that's my mistake. However, it isn't a moot point, in fact, Balor's reign is also within this reasoning.Aardwolf68 (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have recently engaged in disruptive edit on Elimination Chamber (2020) by reverting to an old version with incorrect spelling and have not discussed reason for this change, keep in mind the WP:EW policy violating which may result in getting reported and you may be blocke and you have been known to add multiple contents without sources on majority of your contribution. Do not revert edits without explanation and always cite WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further into your contribution history it is evident you have broken the three revert rule multiple times and have engaged in numerous WP:EW. [1] Stop or you will be reported and may be blocked. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit because the image was broken in your recent edit, I did not notice the spelling error being fixed so I do apologize. But please, do not threaten me with administrative action before explaining the rules to me. Thank you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its ok to be unaware of them. Well before reverting edits (which is mostly justified if you are reverting disruptive editing) be sure to check out WP:EW if you have content related dispute with legitimate users. Also when adding new information always cite reliable sources, here is the list of reliable sources on professional wrestling article WP:PW/RS, feel free to use any of the sources that have been listed reliable, and be sure to avoid sources that have been listed unreliable. If you catch anyone breaking the rules persistently warn them, if they do not comply report them to: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Also here is the professional wrestling project page where you can discuss suggestions relating to pro wrestling articles: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. All the best. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of the 3 revert rule, that, I did not know about. However, my edit reversion against the image for the page being corrupted, not against your spelling correction, although it should be said I should have looked before I reverted Aardwolf68 (talk)`

If you find a corrupted image you can always replace it with a good one. Reverting is mainly for inaccurate, unsourced and disruptive contents. Anyway it is all right now, feel free to continue contributing. Bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for talking this out, it really does go a long way. Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sonic the Hedgehog (OVA). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Your recent editing history at The Last of Us Part II 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Per WP:BRD, please discuss in the talk page OceanHok (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can promise that this was not supposed to be interpreted as an edit war, I just think that there is something that I'm personally not understanding with how reliable sources work, which is embarrassing given my length of time on this site. However, if the sources that I am providing are not reliable, then I completely understand why my edits keep being revoked. Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reaction is only notable when they are covered by secondary reliable sources (e.g. IGN, GameSpot, Game Informer etc.). The full list can be found in WP:VG/RS. If you can find reliable sources, I don't recommend mentioning specific story beats. It will be ok if we simply say that the fans were not happy with the plot (given the inconsistencies between the leaks). However, if we are talking about the analysis of plot elements, it would make more sense if we include it after the game's release because there would actually be comprehensive analysis from gaming jouranlists. OceanHok (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Relapse (Eminem album), you may be blocked from editing. As WP:STICKTOSOURCE explains, "Each statement in the article [should be] attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." You cannot use the idea that it was praised for its "dark and disturbing" aspect and attribute it to "many" sources, when in fact the quote is from only one source. You cannot say it has been "celebrated by critics as one of the best horrorcore albums", when this idea is not even said by the one source you are citing. isento (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HK19

I would kindly ask you to stop inferring that the contestant progress table is stolen from Wikia. I created the table using a template from past seasons on Wikipedia and as i live in the UK i am updating it after each episode airs. The Wikia is clearly the one copying Wikipedia's table. Makro (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The template for the Wikia was created in 2017.... but I'm not arguing about that, I'm talking the plagiarism that has taken place on the opening section, that was taken directly from the Wikia... Also, dude, are you ignorant? We have friends in the UK and he streams us the Episodes when they air there, and the episodes can often be found on YouTube or DailyMotion. There's no need to be dense about this whole situation. Aardwolf68 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Your recent editing history at Hell's Kitchen (American season 19) 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Waggie (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at F*ck Love, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AshMusique (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

Hi Aaardwolf68, I reverted your recent post at Talk:Jessica Yaniv as it made a contentious claim about a living person without any sourcing. I would not be opposed to a similar discussion that starts with a reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert - BLP

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Your recent editing history at Becky Lynch 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LM2000 (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. LM2000 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aardwolf58. The filer, User:LM2000 says you are engaged in a long term slow edit war at Becky Lynch. I count six reverts by you since 27 September. If you have anything to say, you can reply at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at his edits in the last couple of years he doesn't seem to have read this 5.90.58.187 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned as a result of the complaint. You may be blocked if you revert again at Becky Lynch unless you have obtained a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. 05:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Our articles on professional wrestling are covered by special rules

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in professional wrestling. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Morce Library (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Your recent editing history at Heartbreak on a Full Moon 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Morce Library (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don’t copy and paste admin warnings in an effort to threaten me. Get an actual admin to look at what’s going on and I can guarantee you that you’ll be proven wrong. Thanks. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way threatening you, I'm just asking you to please stop edit warring, and discuss the edits somewhere else than edit summaries, as Wikipedia rules suggest you to do--Morce Library (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, don’t act clueless in your previous warnings and then attempt to act like you know what you’re talking about in the next. You, word for word, sent an admin warning to me. That was unnecessary when you could’ve simply asked me to stop editing warring. Secondly, I did! It’s on the Heartbreak on a Full Moon talk page, where an admin thanked me for removing your content. See you there. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was necessary, because i already asked you to stop editing warring on my talk page and you didn't. You stopped edit warring exclusively following the warning--Morce Library (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stopped reverting your edits because an actual admin would have a rightful reason to stop me from editing because of this dispute that you’re causing. It’s not because of you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid using misleading edit summaries

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing edits

Hi there. I'm going to assume you mean well with edits like this one and for sure, the editor you are "reverting" was blocked for introducing unsourced information, but reverting to a version seven months ago is not the way to do it. Many legitimate edits were made in these months and your edit just made dozens of bells ring all around for undoing many of those edits. This does not even speak about the false edit summary you used, which I see some other editor also warned you about. If you want to tag the article, or even better, fix it, go ahead and do it, but not this way. --Muhandes (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seconding this. I appreciate you're trying to clean things up, but some of these reverts of yours are far too heavy handed. I've observed you remove a lot of good content/sourcing while removing the bad stuff. It might be better to make more smaller edits so that all of your work in big edits aren't all undone when you make some mistakes in the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the support, but right now I'm once again dealing with people reverting my edits that include going back to vandalized versions of the edits... if I could have some support with reverting this godawful vandalism I'd appreciate it. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Diana7800 (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

As a feminist i personally hate Chris Brown because of his domestic abuses and stuff, but personally disliking him doesn't justify the fact that you are blanking these pages. Please stop--Diana7800 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blanking his pages, and my personal dislike has nothing to do with my edits, a lot of the edits I've reverted were either poorly sourced or a clear attempt at fancruft, and while I understand that my actions seem really suspicious, I'm asking that I be heard instead of being listed as a vandal, ugh... I know you're just doing your jobs and I appreciate that, I'm just really frustrated by the amount of BS fancruft is happening. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also violated the three-revert rule, please, i don't want to report you. Revert your exaggerated removals and let's discuss how we can get better the page without you getting blocked--Diana7800 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know... some of my actions have been hasty in an attempt to remove fancruft instead of thinking it through some more, I really am truly sorry about it and my hastiness hasn't made this an easy process, you're right that I should take this slowly instead of removing it all at once, thank you for understanding, I appreciate it. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Plus, your reverts are full of unsourced claims. You need to discuss things on talk pages instead of jumping on edits like that.--Diana7800 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Yeah, you're right about both of those things, my edits used vague generalizations, and my use of talk pages isn't very good at all, thank you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you saying that your use of talk pages is bad, in fact, it can save you from being blocked, i suggest you to use it in the future instread of being that impetuous--Diana7800 (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, on Indigo and Breakups & Moonlight you gotta check into the site, they are allowed to be read by paid subscribers of the magazine, maybe that's why you don't see it--Diana7800 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean for my wording to sound that odd, I was just saying that I was never good at using talk pages, and that it's something I need to do more oftenAardwolf68 (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna be frank with you, cause i see that you didnt do it on purpose. I suggest you to use talk pages next time, because editing can be a mess, especially when talking about that amount of content--Diana7800 (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a risk I'm willing to take, I don't want to hide anything that I've done even if it's dumb, and as you saw, I shot Serge a message on his talk page. Look, I'm going to be taking a little break from all of this instead of attempting to fix this all at once, because if I do the latter then I'm not going to be doing much help if I continue to hastily do all of this stuff. Thank you so much for understanding what I'm trying to do, you and Serge both. Again, I'm extremely sorry about my behavior and I appreciate your efforts to improve my editing. It means a lot/. Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the important thing is that you don't be that hasty, as i told you, I'm absolutely not a supporter of a dude that did domestic violence, but I'm not going to cut his page off because of my beliefs or morals--Diana7800 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably gonna log off for now, just to get the formalities and everything out of the way, so, again, thank you so much for your help, I'll be here in case you need to discuss anything else, with best regards. Aardwolf68 (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll be here for any discussion!😄 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diana7800 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Racial views of Donald Trump

Please read WP:POINT -- you said in your recent edit summary that you are revert warring to get me to post to you on the talk page. That is disruptive. Please self revert your second edit. You are changing longstanding consensus text, and the ONUS is on you to generate consensus foir any changes you wish to propose. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions violation

Checking the edit history, I now see that you violated the page restriction on that article with these two edits #1 and #2 Please self revert the second of these to avoid a possible block from editing. SPECIFICO talk 00:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Discretionary Sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 00:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced false information

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Mr. Crabx (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

On Unforgiven (2004), and countless other pages, you added false and unsourced stuff. You did that a lot of times. Don't do that. Wikipedia is a serious thing--Mr. Crabx (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You say this and use terms such as “unsourced fakery”, don’t play stupid with me, I know who you are, Morce. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.LM2000 (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing false criticisms on WrestleMania

Nobody saw Asuka’s loss as a start of her downward momentum. She even won the 2020 Women's Money in the Bank ladder match afterwards. Stop writing this false stuff out of your mind, with. I'm not even an administrator and i know that the verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations. Stop doing that, or i will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayleying the wrestling (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC) On WrestleMania 36 you changed that it was highly appreciated just because you didn't like it that much. Don't make it seems worse than it was because you didn't like it, it was highly appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayleying the wrestling (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the Asuka quote, she lost consistently to Carmella in stupid ways and her title runs were underwhelming at best, and was never the same after the match. As for Wrestlemania 36, I loved it. But reception wasn't "highly positive" as you say it was. Where's proof that all reception towards the event was extremely positive, critics pointed out flaws in the event, and I even added points of interest where it was received well.

STOP THE FAKERY, "stupid ways" are what you are bringing to these pages--Bayleying the wrestling (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you say “fakery”, either you’re a sock I’ve been dealing with or just another troll.Aardwolf68 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making fun of your name, i misspelled it, my fault. Then i have to say fakery because that's what you're writing, an IP told me you were adding fakery and i noticed it too. I'm not trolling, you are. Your edits are false assumptions and opinions, look what you did to Akira's article, hating. While glorifying your favs --Bayleying the wrestling (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fakery is generally unprofessional and a troll had used that against me before. And if the IP had an issue with me, they could’ve undone the edits on their own. I’m not trolling, im simply adding facts. The heels winning at Wrestlemania isn’t fakery, they’re facts that should be noted, and the tidbits of reception that im adding are true as well, you have yet to disprove them and it frustrates me that you deleted my message on your talk page when I wanted to talk it out. Who’s Akira? I’m not hating on anybody, and I’m surely not glorifying anybody whatsoever. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are trolling, and not adding facts. The heels winning at Wrestlemania is false, and the tidbits of reception that you are adding is false as well, i proved it and it frustrates me that you tried to move your edits mess to my talk page, while we were discussing here. --Bayleying the wrestling (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re clearly not here to discuss an editing conflict, and are only here to make conflict yourself. I’m not arguing any longer Aardwolf68 (talk)|

How am i making conflict, I'm just telling you why i made those edits, and you're insultimng me and talking about the term "fakery"--Bayleying the wrestling (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you, Aardwolf68, for taking the time in January to remove hoax edits added to Chris Brown–related articles by a long series of sockpuppets. Please keep up the excellent work! — Newslinger talk 06:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever encounter another user that appears to be a sockpuppet of the banned editor Giubbotto non ortodosso (talk · contribs), please feel free to submit a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap what a thing to wake up, I genuinely appreciate this. Although from what I’ve seen, the Chris Brown articles have gone back to their previous states. Regardless, I’m happy to help out and will be sure to submit and investigation. Again, thanks Aardwolf68 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's long overdue! This is perhaps the most egregious hoax I've seen on Wikipedia and I'm thankful that you identified it, even though it took too much time for others to notice. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, whether it's about sourcing, cleaning up vandalism, or anything else, please feel free to ask me. — Newslinger talk 06:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown 2

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:

Scott dischard (talk · contribs · block log · spi)

Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

On X you said that the album "divided reviewers" and that "many were critical" of it, but Metacritic says "generally positive reviews", and doesn't show one single negative review. On Heartbreak on a Full Moon you claimed you removed all the reviews without scores because they had no score, but in reality all you did was remove the positive ones without scores and keep the Vulture review (that has no score) putting in the artile the most negative statements of that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott dischard (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

There were a plethora of reviews that Metacritic considered to be a “mixed” review, but the reviews themselves expressed a more negative opinion than what the color of the review implied. If you would go an read those reviews, you would understand what I’m talking about. As for HeartBreak, I should’ve clarified that I removed the UrbanIslandz reviews because as far as I’m concerned, it’s nowhere close to a reliable source, if it is, let me know and prove that it is and I’ll be happy to have it restored. Hope this helps. Aardwolf68 (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usa today

"USA Today didn't have a score" nah bruh. It did have a score and it's clearly written in the article. You opted to remove it and use Slant Magazine just because it's a much more negative review instead, because (as User: Instantwatym and many others said) you're WP: Cherrypicking--158.148.84.253 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what about you acknowledging you made "an idiotic edit on Exclusive" lowering its rating scores and removing reviews for no fuckn reason, then never fixing your mistake. You are a bag of clowns packed all in one person and you should be ashamed of yourself. People like you are the ruin of this encyclopedia--158.148.84.253 (talk) 09:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to give you much time because you're clearly a sock puppet and/or a troll here. The idiotic mistake was only recognized by me after it had already been fixed, and I've apologized for it. Can you also please point me towards where the USA Today score is? Thank you. Either way, it shouldn't be in the infobox, since that's usually reserved for the Metacritic scores anyhow. Aardwolf68 (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please look at your edits before you posted them by using the "show preview" button next time, because you made some errors with this edit. But don't worry, I have restore the edits with some minor improvements. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should probably do this, as some mistakes unfortunately slip through the cracks despite my best efforts. Thanks for the advice, it’s appreciated a lot. Aardwolf68 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice on contentious topics area Balkans or Eastern Europe

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. TylerBurden (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Doug Weller talk 09:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Closing discussion per WP:EVADE

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Indigo

Hi. On "Indigo" one of your edits was full of texting/grammar errors, repeating words (and stated stated), including messy citation points (""). Please be careful about it. In addition to that, one review (HipHopDX) can't take 80% of the whole section, it has to be balanced, so I summed it up. If something is wrong with this version, according to you, please let me find out here, and we'll discuss about it, without starting a disruptive edit war. All weekend on the weeknd (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wished to fix the grammatical errors, then surely rewriting an entire section wouldn't be necessary. It is very clear you found these grammatical mistakes and are using it as an excuse to remove criticism related to Chris Brown album articles. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're pushing your personal opinion on the articles, making it look like it comes from critics' mouths, while also making plenty typos and grammatical errors. Am I wrong? If so, quote me some edits--All weekend on the weeknd (talk)

Royalty

On Royalty, you exclusively point out the negative parts of reviews while saying it's "mixed". That is not right. Plus it wasn't a universal thing that there was "criticism relating to the album's content", as, for example, Los Angeles Times and The Columbus Dispatch wrote positively about it. If you really wanna talk about the opinions on the album's content, you have to stay true to all reviews and say that they are ambivalent. If something is wrong with this version, according to you, please let me find out here, and we'll discuss about it, without starting a disruptive edit war. All weekend on the weeknd (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.M.E.

It is not true that "the content and Brown's performances" were universally panned on that album, as several of the reviews are (on the opposite) very positive about it (Entertainment Weekly, AllMusic, USA Today, LA Times). I removed "No ripcord" because it was absolutely an unreliable site, and fixed the tone, that has to be more encyclopedic and less critic-talk. If something is wrong with this version, according to you, please let me find out here, and we'll discuss about it, without starting a disruptive edit war. All weekend on the weeknd (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with filling a bare reference? Is there any reason for your revert?--Egeymi (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violations

In your haste to revert anything and everything on Chris Brown related album articles as per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, even reverting bot edits and edits by a non-socpuppet account who was filling in bare references, you didn't realise that you picked up 3RR violations on 2 different articles on August 29th. Instantwatym (talk) 14:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bots were reverted so that I was able to revert the edits made by sock puppets, thank you. Aardwolf68 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm#Euro label

Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 183.171.120.229 (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ภץאคгöร 20:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 NFC tiebreaker

It was a 3 way conference tie. Head to head is not used unless 1 team beats the other 2 or loses to the other 2. 49ers got the 1 seed on conference record. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly just not true if you look at the NFL’s tie breaking procedures. https://www.nfl.com/standings/tie-breaking-procedures Aardwolf68 (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your very own link proves me right. Go down to where it says 3 or more wild card. It clearly says 1 has beat the other 2 or lose to the other 2. This did not happen. Head to head is not used. ITS A 3 WAY TIE. NOT 2 WAY. Conference record applys when 1 team does NOT beat the other 2 or lose to the other 2. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 05:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 49ers, Cowboys, and Lions were all divisional winners, not wild card teams. Aardwolf68 (talk) 06:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]