Linkin Prankster

June 2022

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 All American: Homecoming, 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. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I removed the backdoor pilot because it's not a part of the show. How is it non-constructive? Linkin Prankster (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a backdoor pilot for the TV series for a reason. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It was aired as part of All American Season 3, not Homecoming. You should remove it. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanking me for my edit? You should've found citations while you're at it.

The edit you did at Tom Swift (TV series) featured a sentence about its final episode + date without any proof. I suppose it's fine to cite a news article with the correct date, instead of something like Zap2it. Just letting you know. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

You're right, that was my fault. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's good you're realizing that mistake. I'm sorry for being unable to find citations myself, I'm moreso focused on editing. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and no problem. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

A cookie for you! (Sorry for sounding lazy, by the way.)

Hey, so I decided to get advice from the Teahouse and my talk page. I figured I should apologize for sounding like I'm a lazy user. Instead, as my reparation, here's a cookie. (I'm not sure about what you like, so...) WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BBQ Brawl Season 3 Intertitle.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BBQ Brawl Season 3 Intertitle.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello Linkin Prankster, please be mindful to use edit summaries in all of your edits, no matter how big or small. It helps other editors know what changes you made so they don't have to go through each edit to see what you changed. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

wp:copyright infringement

The 1981 picture is (c) at Getty Images; proof here at The Guardian with this article [1]. Woovee (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Woovee: The image wasn't uploaded by me. Linkin Prankster (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

House of the Dragon piracy

Please, there is good faith about the piracy relating to this series, including Euphoria and Peacemaker. CastJared (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not assume any bad faith about anyone's edits User:CastJared, however the fact that it is being extensively pirated or is the most pirated show would be more relevant to "Viewership" than the "Release" section. Since it concerns people viewing the show. I simply shifted it to another part of the article where it would be more relevant. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I know, I decided to minor edit it back. CastJared (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As for edit summaries editing multiple sections of a long article on the mobile is a pain, so I only edit one section at a time. And I leave edit summary when my edits are done. Leaving the same edit summary in every edit would be redundant and a waste of time. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. That what I know. CastJared (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core content policies, Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. There is a source stating that Season 9 of The Flash will conclude the Arrowverse. Do you have any source, that is not your own personal opinion or a sentence that includes the word "might", that the Arrowverse will continue with Justice U? If not, then you need to cease your edits, or face being reported for edit-warring. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey User:Alex_21 since you want to talk about verification, can you give me any actual confirmation and not GamesRadar's claims that Flash season 9 is a conclusion? Also if you're aware that Justice U might be set in Arrowverse, aren't you using what is speculation believed to be a fact by a website? Btw here's a secondary source carrying Ramsey implicitly implying it will be in Arrowverse, since it concerns the ring storyline only shown in the Arrowverse [2]. Note it uses his comments as proof unlike yours. Justice U was an Arrowverse show since beginning [3]. You have no case here. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not up to editors to analyze secondary sources; I recommend you read up on policies such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR, and realize that GamesRadar, as a secondary source, is completely acceptable. I did ask if you could use a sentence or source without the word "might", but you were unable to do so yet again. You have now been reverted by multiple editors; any further, and you'll be visiting the administrators. -- Alex_21 _TALK 19:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is, a source has to give out reliable information to be reliable. Not just considered reliable. Wikipedia is a collection of facts. Analysing sources is how you verify whether a information is true. Imagine a secondary source you consider reliable says one thing, another you also consider reliable says another. In this case whoever is backed up by other reliable sources or official one is the true one.

Since you didn't even check the sources: In another comment, Ramsey said that the reason Diggle didn't accept the ring was "A LONG story. But.. Stay tuned.." - This storyline isn't present in Superman & Lois.

In the new series, which is set in the Arrowverse, after years of fighting alongside masked heroes, Diggle embarks on a new mission to recruit five young meta humans to live undercover as freshmen at a prestigious university. - This Deadline source explicitly called it part of Arrowverse, will you please check the sources I linked above before talking on them?

And please don't try to threaten me, I know well not to revert again. But I will revert you if you make a similar edit again elsewhere without checking the veracity of the info. You don't scare me. Now please leave my talk page. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

And if you're going to threaten, please notice you've yourself reached the limit of 3RR and didn't wait for a resolution. Any complaint is also going to also reflect on your edit warring similarly to me. Linkin Prankster (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Magitroopa Try realizing you are edit warring yourself and the admins won't look favourably at that. Linkin Prankster (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series), you may be blocked from editing. At this point, you are now reverting perfectly correct citation updates. Continue on with this and it will be taken to WP:ANI, so I suggest you stop now. Magitroopa (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you really ignoring that you're edit warring yourself? Please complain me if you want, it's not like admins won't block you for edit warring too. Linkin Prankster (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As I have indicated in my edit summaries, I'm not trying to edit anything else apart from the citation, however, you are now seemingly attempting to take ownership over a literal citation?? I don't know what to say anymore, after having an edit just cleaning up/correcting a citation 'worthless'. I have already explained why these changes are not 'worthless' within my latest edit summary. If you are going to continue on with edit warring over a citation within an article like this, I'm seriously at a loss of words.

And just to elaborate on why the changes are not 'worthless' outside of an edit summary:

• Ref name removal- a ref name is not necessary if being used once in article, such as it currently is
• Author changes- 'author' is used throughout other citations in the article as opposed to 'last'/'first' and should not be changed per WP:CITEVAR
• Variety wikilink- 'website'/'work' parameter can be wikilinked, as per Template:Cite web#Website
• All American and Walker italicizations- As I already mentioned in the edit summary, this is literally as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, specifically the fourth bullet which begins with, "Titles of works that should be italicized receive this treatment inside another title".

I have no idea what other issues you may or may not have with the citation, but it should not be necessary for an editor to explain to you every single reason a citation is being changed like this. Magitroopa (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You did edit more than just the citation many times earlier, and regardless of your intentions you're still edit-warring. Partial reverts also count as reverts. 'm not touching your citation edit any longer. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American season 20). 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Is this now your third edit war within a one month timeframe?... I'd suggest you stop trying to get yourself in trouble. As for this issue, 'true titles' are not necessary when the website's title is already included in the citation. Please discuss this on a talk page rather than edit warring yet again- attempting to discuss through revert edits summaries rather than a talk page is highly disruptive and may lead to a block in the future. Magitroopa (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: You've reverted me twice and I've stopped reverting. If I'm edit warring, so are you. Please read WP:3RR and WP:3RRNO. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Please read WP:EASTEREGG, particularly Also remember there are people who print the articles...In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. DonQuixote (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:DonQuixote Your reasoning doesn't make sense, we're not creating this article for someone's school project. Linkin Prankster (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

It's literally quoted from WP:EASTEREGG. If you can't understand it, then that's all on you. DonQuixote (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I've suggested adding a note as an alternative. Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

A Newcastle for you!

Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Neither BRD, nor STATUSQUO are actual policies, they're personal opinions of editors about what usually are best practices. But the same practice can't be always applied in every case.

For some reason, people like you always revert and tell others toget a consensus. But you never do that yourself. You talk about edit-warring despite having the same number of reverts. You're edit-warring yourself if you don't realize. So are you going to bother to start a discussion, or are you going to make me start one? Besides, until now you haven't given one actual practical reason for the removal of ratings. You're acting as if a very small box is clogging up the table, and using "others dispute it's informative" as a reason. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

If it was intended for that table, there'd be a regular parameter for it, as there are regular parameters for it in other templates. You made the edit, you get the consensus. Start a proper discussion. Isn't that hard, champ. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Alex 21 Not intended=/= not permitted. You know that very well. It's not in that table, because it was intended for the separate ratings table where the DVR ratings used to be. Now that the DVR ratings are no longer available, the ratings table are being removed as they're mostly empty. The ratings were always intended to be in TV shows articles. I can't believe we're fighting over a small box because you don't like how it looks or understand how it works. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Permitted ≠ unable to be disputed. You know that very well. Start a proper discussion. ("I can't believe we're fighting over a small box because you don't [...] understand how it works" is a bit laughable, given the template in question.) To quote you: a standard ≠ a rule, just because it's standard to include the ratings, it is not a rule that they must be included. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Getting a consensus is a duty of both sides, it's just expected of the party that made the change to try to get one first to try to avoid an edit war. But consensus is required from both sides, so you aren't going to impose your edits. Your mocking and refusal to do anything but argue, while ignoring how it's not intended for the episodes table because there was already a separate "Ratings" table is becoming very unwelcoming. I'll start a discussion and of course will follow the consensus, now please leave the page. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

All the best, happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: I've self-reverted and started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television in order to seek a general guideline on whether to include same day ratings in "Episodes" table of all articles. Please leave your own opinion on the issue. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Rebel Moon

Thank you for this ~ closing the RfA; i think it was the right choice and shows maturity and good editing qualities on your part. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Israel–Hamas war infobox casualties format

Hi. Would you perhaps have an opinion on the discussion there? galenIgh 13:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)