Zylo1994

Welcome!

Thanks for visiting my page. Feel free to leave me a message.

Matt Cardle vs Biffy Clyro

Thanks for your contributions on the "Many of Horror" page specially adding relevant materials to Matt Cardle section. But since there has been huge resentment to us overemphasizing a cover rather than an original, and for the sake of equality, could we rely on you that a similar "Critical reception" section of similar structure is added by your experienced editing to the original Biffy Clyro's section, or else the page looks imbalanced to me and many other concerned editors. It surely will look exactly like that to the fans of the original who have deleted the Matt Cardle section altogether so many times now that we had to add protection against vandalism to the page. The original by Biffy Clyro should have similar structure and focus and depth in coverage so that it is not overwhlemed by excessive attention to Matt Cardle section. It is only fair this way werldwayd (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I could certainly try. However I doubt there will be many reviews for Biffy Clyro. What I did with Avril Lavigne singles was take any mention of indivdual singles in album reviews and use them - I'll try that. ^_^ Zylo1994 (talk) 08:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So long as there are some reviews, and I am sure there are, this would be welcome addition. Strange as it may seem, I have never ever done "Critical reception" sections ever, despite creating tens of album and song pages. I wouldn't even know where to look for them. I kind of liked what you did for Matt's version. The Biffy Clyro version is just one year ago so there should be some about it I am pretty sure being the great song that it is. I am also very sure most of them had high praise for the Biffy original werldwayd (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done I found many album reviews but not many of them focussed on "Many of Horror". It's still a fairly decent section though, if I do say so myself :P Zylo1994 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When We Collide Number 1

You reverted my edit for Matt Cardle's song "When We Collide" being number 1. BBC Radio 1 get their stats from The Official Charts Company - and their official website is theofficialcharts.com - and on there they put on the Top 40 secretly, so you have to go to archives and changed the date at the end to 25. Then at 7pm they reveal the Top 100 completely. The Top 40 BBC Radio 1 do is the same as The Official Charts Company's Top 40. Proved wrong. Ninjinian (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC) =)

Yes I reverted it because I didn't know any better. Then when the editor explained, I left it alone. Thank you for explaining it further but theres no need for the "proved wrong" comment, is there? Zylo1994 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh you're talking about your edit I undid? I thought you were talking about Mhiji's edit I changed. I undid your edit because you didn't provide a source. Wikipedia needs sources. Zylo1994 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

ASCAP refs

Hey Zylo, thanks so much for taking the time to archive refs. I only just realized that I should point out that, in the case of the Goodbye Lullaby tracklist, you've been referencing (and subsequently archiving) the full ASCAP list of songs, which isn't correct. Each separate song (and its credits) needs to be referenced, and since each has its own URL, then each ASCAP credit needs to have its own reference and archive URL. This is a lesson I learned on one of the album articles I worked on last year, when it came to referencing online magazines. I would simply reference, and archive, the first page of the magazine, even though pages 2 through 5 (for example) had their own URLs. I corrected the ASCAP references in Goodbye Lullaby (with several browser windows open, it wasn't a big deal at all), and each reference is subsequently called "ascaphell", "ascappush", "ascaphurts", etc (just fyi). Anyway, I wanted to point this out before you got too crazy with archiving! Keep up the awesome work! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Aaah ok. Thanks for letting me know! Zylo1994 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You bet! : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Avril discography

The changes I made weren't inaccurate. Look at the reference. That article is full of lies.--Luisrafael7 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Avril Lavigne (estimated annual readership: 4,355,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox on your page:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Avril Lavigne to Good Article status.

For reaching the highest tier of this award, you've also been added to the Million Award Hall of Fame. If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!

Thanks again for helping so many readers worldwide; your contributions make a tremendous difference. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Zylo1994. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at J. K. Rowling 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.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF

This isn't acceptable. Accusing someone of being a transphobe because they're asking you get consensus for a controversial edit is bad faith and an editor of 11 years should know better than to do that. Also make sure you read WP:BRD -- your edits are disputed and it's time for you to talk them through on the talk page rather than edit warring. — Czello 09:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)