User talk:Kala7992

Punctuation and references[edit]

I have undone your changes to His Dark Materials. You may want to read MOS:REFPUNCT. Bazza (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made punctatuation and the information I changed was correct, I will simply undo your undo and if you so wish you can add the correct ounctuation yourself. The release date is correct and the article is a verifiable source as far as im concerned Kala7992 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the references before the punctuation, which is against the requirement at MOS:REFPUNCT. Note that edit warring (which is what you will be doing if you reinstate your edits, can get you blocked. You should continue to do what you have started here and discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Bazza (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand what your issue is, why should the new release date not be there if its been publically announced? Since you're so much better at editing than I am, why cant you correct whatever simple mistake ive made, ive literally done most of the work by providing the article title, link and dates associated with it Kala7992 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You moved references inside punctuation, which contravenes MOS:REFPUNCT. And your specific dates contravene WP:CRYSTALBALL, in particular Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. I see you are a new user, so might want to step back from being so confrontational and have a read of WP:BRD. You may get a formal welcome from someone else later, which will also point you to some good guidance for editing. Meanwhile, if you are certain that the date must be included in the opening paragraphs of the article, then you will need to discuss it on the article's talk page before editing further. Bazza (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started the discussion I mentioned above. Bazza (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be as you originally intended, I dont have time to fuss over this anymore Kala7992 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Adam Levine) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was on my way here to implement a site-wide block for a longer period. I will not modify 331dot's block, but be warned that if you make any more personal attacks on any editors, you will be blocked from editing across the project. WP:NPA is policy, and it is not limited to profane abuse - I'd strongly advise you to read it. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the use of profanity, that will cease to happen from now on. I am done with Adam Levine's page and have been blocked anyways. Hopefully I can move on without this affecting my ability to edit non-controversial articles without violating any policy Kala7992 (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's not just profanities that are forbidden - you may not use insults of any kind, even calling someone a loser or similar is a violation of that policy. I strongly urge all new editors to read it and take it to heart - it is enforced vigorously. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of biggest box-office bombs. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - wolf 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: if you realized the amount of work Betty Logan has put into that article, both building and maintaining it, you'd realize how foolish you look calling them "stupid" and "biased" (which is an WP:NPA vio, something you were specifically warned about after your last edit-warring block). The wisest course of action for you now would be to apologize for those remarks, desist from further edit-warring, and engage others on the article talk page about your concerns, or just let it be and move on. (jmho) - wolf 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt call Betty Logan "stupid" but her reasoning, it is a confirmed fact that Shazam 2 is a bomb and bombed harder than many other entries on the list, i challenged the logic of that decision, i refuse to apologize Kala7992 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The apology is between you and Betty Logan. The edit warring is now between you and whichever admin handles the AN/EW report. - wolf 20:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight can you at least just block me from editing that particular article without a general edit ban? Kala7992 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are blocked from List of biggest box-office bombs for a month, but are free to edit the talk page and other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. - wolf 20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Grillo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Lotus. 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) 06:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]