User talk:Holydiver82

January 2024

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Your recent edits to The Mummy (2017 film) & Transformers: The Last Knight seem to be about making a point due to the consensus reached at Talk:The Marvels#Box Office Bomb. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so correcting wikipedia articles to make them as accurate as possible is a problem? if someone learns about wikipedia guidelines related to a subject and then goes and works to improve articles based on the guidelines that is wrong?

very confusing why you are assuming such bad faith from edits made to improve articles based on a better understanding of wikipedia and its guides on how to write articles Holydiver82 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous posts, it's clear you are editing articles to prove a point after the outcome of the discussion surrounding The Marvels, it's not a bad faith assumption to make. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can read minds? what happened to wikipedia assuming good faith? Holydiver82 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not reading minds, just observing clear patterns in editing. I would normally assume good faith, but the way you've talked and edited has made me assume otherwise. Harryhenry1 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

learning about wikipedia guides on how to write articles and then improving other articles in line with those guides? to make them as accurate and correct as possible based on reliable sources?

you people seem to dislike anyone other than yourselves making an edit Holydiver82 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't - you seem to be assuming bad faith yourself. And while learning from Wikipedia guides is nice and a good thing, that doesn't include editing other articles to make a point, per WP:POINT. Harryhenry1 (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what point is that? since that accusation keeps getting thrown around so often Holydiver82 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A point to make against the consensus reached surrounding the description of The Marvels (film) as a box-office bomb. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correcting articles with unsourced opinions does that how?

baseless accusations..sad Holydiver82 (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Holydiver82! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. As an aside - if you have issues with the MOS:ACCLAIMED policy, I would suggest starting an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film instead of editing to make a point. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am working to improve and correct articles with unsourced opinions, quite a few film articles have these unsourced opinions that are not in line with wiki guidelines and policy and need improvement. Holydiver82 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the policy on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which states:

"When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. Sometimes, this is done simply to prove a point in a local dispute. In other cases, one might try to enforce a rule in a generally unpopular way, with the aim of getting it changed.

Such tactics are highly disruptive to the project. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or related pages.

Note that someone can legitimately make a point, without disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it."

As I stated at Talk:The Marvels, if you're here to build an encyclopedia, then there are ways to make your point without disruptive editing (such as gathering more sources or starting a discussion at the project page which set a policy). But you shouldn't bludgeon the process because you don't like the consensus. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how is it disruptive editing to correct articles that have unsourced opinions? in order to improve them to follow wikipedia guides on having sources for claims, especially exceptional claim under MOS acclaimed.

I am working to correct/improve articles that have unsourced opinions, unsure why more of you are not out there reviewing film articles that do this in order to correct them?

or why you would have any sort of problem with corrections being made to improve those articles? you dont want the articles to be as accurate, correct, and unbias as possible? Holydiver82 (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you also seem to fundamentally not understand that not only do I not have any problem with the policy and guidelines of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#ACCLAIMED

but agree with those policies and guides and have absolutely no interest in changing those guides and policies because they serve a useful and important purpose Holydiver82 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your comments at Talk:The Marvels#Comments regarding closed discussion are unproductive and have been collapsed. More concerning is that you have also cast subtle aspersions on more than one occasion, making accusations that editors you disagree with are avoiding reality or have a "personal interest" bias, the latter of which you repeated here. Accusations of misconduct or misbehavior without sufficient evidence is unacceptable, and collectively, a pattern of doing so could be interpreted as a personal attack. Please be careful in the heat of a dispute and choose to focus on the content in question instead of editor behavior. These comments were collapsed, but future comments could be removed and could indicate the need for escalation. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either you missed my comment above or you are ignoring it, because your latest comment is more of the same. You cannot accuse editors of misconduct, misbehavior, or harboring ill will with the intent of gaming the system without providing sufficient evidence. Even with sufficient evidence, this shouldn't be done on a talk page. There are more appropriate venues for that (see WP:ANI). Please stop this immediately and find ways to constructively work with your peers. Assuming good faith and remaining civil are essential principles editors are expected to adhere to. If you are unable to do so and continue to disrupt talk pages, you may lose editing privileges. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

follow up

https://movieweb.com/is-sonys-madame-web-a-box-office-success/

https://collider.com/madame-web-box-office-bomb-sony-plans/ Holydiver82 (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Speed_2:_Cruise_Control

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:The_Flash_(film)

March 2024

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:The Marvels#"Box Office Disaster", you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Acolyte (TV series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Stop removing the Rotten Tomatoes data from this article. Just like every other film and TV article, the data needs to be updated as new reviews come in. Removing it when it gets out of date is ridiculous and unhelpful. adamstom97 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at The Acolyte (TV series)

Your recent editing history at The Acolyte (TV series) 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; read about 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. Nemov (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

funny how i made one revert, adam made 2 reverts. my page is plastered with all kinds of warnings, nothing was said to him. seems legit Holydiver82 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you are in the wrong. It has been clearly explained to you why your ridiculous actions were inappropriate, but you ignored that and kept doing it. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

link to talk page where you said anything before making multiple reverts, aka edit war. ill wait Holydiver82 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to ignore explanations and then claim that they don't count because they weren't in a talk page message. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Holydiver82 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalising the page by deleting genuine content is not a "content dispute". - adamstom97 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

removing data that is not accurate is now vandalism. interesting Holydiver82 (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was RT as a source removed? When the RT score changes you edit the numbers accordingly, you don't remove it entirely. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to The Acolyte (TV series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the WP:OR was removed and it now exactly reflects the information provided by the sources. should be interesting to see what possible reason is given to change it this time Holydiver82 (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Trailblazer101. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Nia DaCosta, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

citation added Holydiver82 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nia DaCosta 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; read about 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. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

every time I update it one of you guys has a reason its wrong. i think go back and correct whats wrong. no citation, add a citation. undue, ok remove undue items. no extra items that are in the body of the article, okay remove all of the extra fluff. trying to figure out exactly what you want. if every edit i make you revert with a reason why it is wrong, i then proceed to correct what was wrong. and then you all revert it anyways. it really begs the question, am i allowed to make edits on wikipedia? whats the point of adding an edit summary with a reason its not correct, if you are then always unhappy when corrections are made. Holydiver82 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2024 (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. Nemov (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Nemov (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

It seems quite clear that you're not actually interested in building an encyclopaedia. You're only interested in deliberately getting involved in controversy do you can stir up arguments. Whatever your reasoning it's quite clear you lack the ability to edit in a collegial and co-operative manner as is required by the project and there is strong evidence you're trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and also simply to entertain yourself. The reasons ultimately are irrelevant, you're clearly not compatible with this project and are a net negative. Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 19:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]