User talk:Manticore/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Manticore. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Automagic. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 10#Automagic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an acute conflict. Changes to this article that distort its neutral status without discussion is not permissible.Kaustritten (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edit, which I reverted, duplicated the 'name' section of the article. Always happy to have a discussion about my contributions, but I won't tolerate being called a "Korean Nazi". I suggest you follow your own advice, and generate a consensus on the article's talk page before entering into an edit war which could see you blocked from editing again. — Manticore 01:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you opposed to enforcing Wikipedia rules? Coordinate editing of an article of a controversial article from an unregistered account without discussion is obviously a violation. To which I pointed out.Kaustritten (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you take a read of Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your communications with me have been unnecessarily hostile, and I'd encourage you to try and be more productive when engaging with other users on Wikipedia. — Manticore 02:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Look at the edits you fool before you delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:4d14:7c01:9c01:4683:74b9:5f42 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Permalink to related discussion

That's none of your business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4060:E95:A924:38AF:4DB6:694F:B424 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Presumably related to this edit

Hey @Ritchie333: do you want to take a closer look at this block? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary here reads "not noteworthy of inclusion / rv disruptive editing". That indicates to me that you did not consider this vandalism or any of the issues documented at WP:3RRNO. In future, I suggest leaving a note at the talk page explaining what the problem is. I have warned the other editor that they will get a side-wide block if they use personal attacks again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have already given the IP a sitewide 1 week block for the violent language they used in the report. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Ritchie333 Sorry, but I think 'disruptive editing' is very much analogous with 'vandalism'. If you had reviewed the article history, as I had, you would have seen another user reverting the same IP mere moments ago for similar disruptive behaviour. I picked up these edits when reviewing the Recent Changes feed, which a quick review of my contributions would tell you is mostly how I contribute to Wikipedia. Frankly, this is no longer simply about the behaviour of an IP making disruptive edits, but of an administrator who, rather than follow their own advice regarding entering into a reasoned discussion, chose to shoot first and ask questions later. I have no intention of entering any sort of edit war, but as a matter of principle, I'd appreciate my unblock request be reviewed by another administrator. — Manticore 09:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"Sorry, but I think 'disruptive editing' is very much analogous with 'vandalism'". Sorry, but you are wrong - please read WP:NOTVANDAL carefully. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the policy, which reads "all vandalism is disruptive editing". I'll be sure to be more precise with my word choice in future, but it now seems to me like you're trying to justify not investigating this matter more thoroughly by focussing on the language I used in an edit summary, rather than admit you have made an error and apologise for it. — Manticore 10:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it reads "In short, all vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism." Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Manticore I am going to review this block, starting by discussing it with the blocking administrator. Thank you for your patience. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @User:HighInBC. I've been here for nearly 15 years, most of that time contributing to Wikipedia by combatting vandalism, and I've never experienced treatment like this before. Frankly I'm quite bewildered and disappointed. — Manticore 10:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333 seems fairly adamant about the block. I still think it is a poor block. The blocking policy is fairly clear about when two admins cannot agree on a block that it should be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for a review by the community. If this is what you want let me know and I post a request for review there. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have unblocked per User:Ritchie333#One revert guarantee, "Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it." I still have concerns that Manticore does not fully understand the nuances of policy and would advise them to read User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism when they have a free moment. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Manticore I am glad that this worked out how it did. I do want to warn you that the exceptions to 3RR are very narrow and while I don't share the interpretation taken today it is the sort of thing that can happen and probably within the realm of administrative discretion.

It is good to refer to a 3RR exemption in your edit summaries when reverting under those exemptions and to be sure they apply. I hope that you can continue the good work you have been doing for the last 15 years and not feel discouraged. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

While partial blocks are technically mild, they can be traumatizing (I found out the hard way – long story). In this case, Manticore did not breach 3RR, so, myself, I would have protected the page rather than block — except, the IP's attacks warranted a block (which was correctly applied) rendering such action moot. I've often advised users to note their contention of their reverts being exempt from 3RR in the edit summary. This greatly increases the chance that a patrolling admin would seeks clarifications about that prior to blocking. El_C 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed the ANI about this (here). I've updated that thread to account for the latest. El_C 11:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'm not an admin but I have to strongly oppose using protection when blocks will do. There's no reason other editor's should be harmed just because someone cannot stopped edit warring or whatever. If editors are traumatised by partial blocks, that's unfortunate, but editors may also be significantly harmed by being unable to edit through zero fault of their own. This is especially the case when you are suggesting something less than full protection as seems to be the case here. You are privileging editors of whatever class for no good reason. While all editors here need to accept sometimes it's necessary because of idiots who can't help themselves, they should not have to accept it when it's not necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, if you wish to discuss this further with me, you may do so at User_talk:El_C#Protecting_versus_blocking, where I feel I've already addressed some of your salient points. El_C 14:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Manticore, quite a lot of us hate it when editors call stuff vandalism which isn't. I haven't looked into the details here, but plenty of disruptive edits are not vandalism as already mentioned. In fact, I personally believe the worst edits are not vandalism. A good way to harm any case you have is to call stuff vandalism which is not. You may be making great edits, but if you do that, you significantly increase the chances people aren't going to notice because you're also doing terrible edits i.e. calling stuff vandalism which is not. It's particularly silly since it serves no purpose. Just call it what it is rather than misusing the word vandalism. This is particularly important if you are an RC patroller since you're going to be reverting a lot of poor edits. If you call edits the wrong thing, you will confuse other reviewers as to what you're trying to do, and you will often confuse the editor you're reverting who may be somewhat unfamiliar with policy and so not understand why you're calling their good faith but bad edits vandalism. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you need to stop with the personal attacks, here and on my talk page (removed). It is unbefitting an editor of your tenure. Briefly to your outburst there, I don't like dealing with generalities but, rather, examine each case according to its individual merits (which I thought I made clear on my talk page). Anyway, maybe take some time to reflect before posting again about this... El_C 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello,you revertrd my edits,I think you did wrong without any evidence. Ameer Bahadur (talk) 11:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I believe your edits to Kohlu were problematic for a few reasons, which is why I reverted them. Firstly, it introduced unencyclopedic and non-neutral content, such as "it is a beautiful valley". Secondly, you included what seems to be your own statements or opinions (such as the above quote) that were not supported by external and reliable sources. Thirdly, your edit broke a link to another article - which I suspect was a mistake on your behalf. Finally, you used misleading edit summaries - stating you had "fixed typo" - when you were actually making substantially changes to the article's content.

If you feel that I've made a mistake in reverting you, please feel to correct it yourself or to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page.

On a final note, as a Wikpiedia editor it's important that you assume good faith. That means not accusing other editors of misconduct using language such as "you did wrong". I apologise that I didn't leave a specific message for you about reverting your edits. I didn't think it necessary to do this as you had received a message earlier today regarding similar issues that I've raised above regarding that article. — Manticore 12:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Manticore

Thanks for flagging your concerns with the sources to be able to discuss potential bias of the CBC. It has been challenging finding sources that are acceptable to allow evidence-based discussion. I agree some media bias sites have very questionable methodology. However, these sources I reference are legitimate surveys, comissioned by the CBC itself and by very well regarded external survey groups (such as COMPAS and Abacus). My statement was deliberately crafted not to say the CBC has a particular bias, but that these sources indicate the Canadian public perceives a Liberal Party/centre-left bias among the CBC, which they definitely do.

Would a rephrase to "surveys" instead of "studies" address the concern? If not, how do I raise these sources on the talk page? Apologies for formatting or word selection. I've only recently joined. Balancingakt (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Manticore 02:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your hard work at PCR! Firestar464 (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Firestar464: Thanks, that's very kind! — Manticore 09:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! Firestar464 (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Neo Motlatla requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stefan2: Thanks for the heads up, but this was just an article that I moved back into the draft space. I didn't create it. — Manticore 09:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You were the one who created the redirect, so you were the one who was notified when the redirect was tagged for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

I have seen you left me a message regarding my attempt at an edit at resources for Microblading page.

I fully understand that WP is not a collection of links. I just saw a notification that the page needed more resources for verification and being familiar with the page I have submitted, I thought it could be useful.

I hope you understand.

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uforusername (talk • contribs)

@Uforusername: Thanks for your message. If you're knowledgeable about that particular topic, I would certainly encourage you to contribute to the article. However, simply adding an external link to the page doesn't really add any value to it. If you're new here, you might like to have a read over Wikipedia's policy on external links. If you're unsure about adding a link to this or to other pages, you can always raise it for discussion on the article's talk page. — Manticore 04:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Go away - 2601:192:8701:B4C0:0:0:0:D14A (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Related warning

Can you please undo your last edit. Wikipedia is an adequate source for the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.50.3 (talk • contribs)

Hi there. I suspect you're referring to this edit. Wikpiedia is not considered a reliable source, as anyone can edit our articles. Wikipedia articles should cite primary sources, not other Wikipedia articles. You can read further at WP:WPNOTRS. — Manticore 11:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sourced content is not official government documents stating that Orania is a semi-autonomous region within South Africa. Please refrain from perpetuation this misconception that Orania is a "semi-automous" region within South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzanzi sa (talk • contribs)

Related discussion

Hello, I saw your message that you left on my talk page regarding my edits to Diane Holland’s page. I appreciate what you said completely, but I just wanted to know if there’s any other way I can reference myself as a source because Diane is a distant family member of mine and I have spent quite a few years now researching her and talking to people that knew her, and I just wanted my efforts to be recognised. Before I began editing her page it was literally one paragraph so I have contributed at least 75% of the material on there. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherinaDiane (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Reply

Hi! I provided actual images of the correspondence where David C. Paul and David Davidar threatened me with legal action. Hope this helps, puneregg111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneregg111 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Puneregg111: This is original research, and isn't permitted. You need to provide a reliable source for all of your contributions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for you to pursue some sort of real world vendetta. — Manticore 06:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the guidance! Please delete all images uploaded by User Puneregg111. They are personal property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puneregg111 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this has already been done at Commons. — Manticore 10:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I was just trying to help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IP_editors_are_human_too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.223.31.240 (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

194.223.31.240 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on your recent edits, I don't believe that you were trying to help, but I'm glad that you've stopped now. — Manticore 11:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi please leave notable relative section alone thank-you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowlike04 (talk • contribs)

@Shadowlike04: Please have a read of our policies on notability and reliable sources. The individual you have added to this article appears to be not notable, and you have not provided a source for their relationship with the article's subject. — Manticore 23:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The Fashion Net article does not contain paid contributions. Is there not a more accurate tag for an article created by an editor with a COI? Thank you Manticore.

Fnoll (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fnoll: I've updated the draft article with a more general conflict of interest tag. However the term 'paid contributions' is quite broad. It would apply if, for example, you were an employee of that company, or received payment or some other benefit from them to create this article. If either of those is the case, the paid contributions tag is more appropriate. — Manticore 03:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Manticore! Could you also remove two of Theroadislong's comment that no longer are relevant? They are: "Comment: re-submitting with zero improvements is pointless and disruptive" and "Comment: YouTube videos confer zero notability, and it's a copyright violation." The link to a video uploaded to YouTube of Fashion Net being featured on BBC was removed and resubmitting the article that had added the presenter of the BBC feature was anything but "pointless and disruptive," but rather confirmed its notability. Does the article now comply with your requirements for approval, or should I work on it more?

Fnoll (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Fnoll: These are comments regarding the draft article. It looks like you've submitted the draft for review again, so you will need to wait for it to be assessed. If the draft is accepted, those comments will be removed. If you feel that those comments are no longer accurate, you can discuss this with User:Theroadislong. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to remove their comments. — Manticore 09:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you, Manticore!

Fnoll (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong declined my submission on November 3rd, claiming it did not comply with Wikipedia notability guidelines for a company or organization. In the draft's history, he writes, "Declining submission: corp - Submission is about a company or organization not yet shown to meet notability guidelines (AFCH 0.9.1)."

Fashion Net, however, is not a company or an organization; Fashion Net is a web portal - the very first of its kind.

I found this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web), but I didn't see anything there that indicates the references I already provided are insufficient.

Thanks for your guidance on this, Manticore.

Fnoll (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I see that Theroadislong has provided an additional comment on the draft article. I haven't reviewed your article, so if you have any questions about that you should send a message to Theroadislong. If you have questions about editing Wikipedia, you'll be able to reach out for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. — Manticore 00:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Do You have a lot of spare time on your hands?

Do You go out of your way to find fault with something?

Are You competitive?

Pluto134340 (talk) 09:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pluto134340: Can I help you with something? — Manticore 09:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: this revert – the IP editor is kind of right. JavaScript has a concept called prototypal inheritance which came out of the older Self language. It's kind of hard to find a reliable source, as this is sort of an esoteric concept that isn't really newsworthy. Here are a couple less-than-reliable sources. It's also mentioned in the Self (programming language) article body. I think it should be added back with a Citation needed tag. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Hey there. I'm no expert on the topic, I just skimmed the article and found no mention of it in the body, which makes it unusual to include in the infobox. But you clearly have a much better understanding of the subject than I do. If you think that's the best way forward, I've got no objection to that. Thanks for the message, I appreciate it. — Manticore 03:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I added it back with the CN tag. If there's any further disagreement from other editors, I'll happily withdraw my concerns. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Brendan Eich himself (inventor of JavaScript) said clearly it is influenced by Self: "I’m happy that I chose Scheme-ish first-class functions and Self-ish (albeit singular) prototypes as the main ingredients [...] I still think of it as a quickie love-child of C and Self."^[1] 88.97.47.162 (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added that as the reference for now. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I've seen several IPs add the same guy in to the article (of course, all of which were rejected). I also found an account indeffed for "not being here to build an encyclopedia". Do you think they're the same guy?

Examples:

• This edit (which you reverted, by 2405:201:C003:EC4C:2C2B:A4B:95FF:C03;
• This, by 45.132.110.247;
• This, by 45.249.76.141;
• This, by 70.54.118.253;
• This, by 82.14.31.170

These IPs all have a lot of interest in the same "Miniminter" person. Marcusmas was blocked after trying to make a draft on said person (it was rejected)

Any thoughts on this? I have a feeling they're proxy IPs, since they change so frequently. Thanks, Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nigos: Hey there. They probably are the same person, but the disruption is quite minimal and easily controlled. It looks like that article has been protected since your message, so that should help. — Manticore 20:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

DFW FAA Brianvators (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You are getting it all wrong. There was no consensus to 'remove' it. David was constantly removing it and I was simply reverting. He was the one who made the change. --Halofo (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You should discuss this issue on the article talk page and gain consensus either way. Continuing an edit war will only see you blocked from editing. — Manticore 02:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why am I being blocked I didnt start this.--Halofo (talk) 02:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You aren't blocked currently, and I'm not an administrator. I'm telling you that edit warring can get you blocked from editing. You need to discuss this on the article talk page. — Manticore 02:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if Im wrong but David made the first change so he should discuss. There was no consensus on the talk page to remove this part. If reverting is edit warring nobody can revert anyone. --Halofo (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the wrong forum to discuss this issue. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page so that you can gain a consensus; i.e. convince other editors of the merits of your argument. — Manticore 02:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And Im telling you Im not the one who should seek consensus. It is David. He is the one who wants to make this change. Normally status quo should be preserved.Halofo (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello,. My name is Yolanda Betty Avery, my Birth name (on my birth certificate) is Iolanda Betty Magris. Please advise if you require further clarification. Avery is my married name. I must leave soon to a meeting. Can we discuss at a later time. What way best to reconnect conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.165.183 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Mantic ore,

Apologies for the confusion. I'm new to the communication.

Please be advised that I am responding to Tatjana's letter.

Many thanks for its delivery. Possible to discuss?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.141.165.183 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What would you like to discuss? — Manticore 10:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manticore, I removed that material as it was unsourced. Moreover, those details belongs to season 3 wikipage, not the main page of the show. Season 3 has not began its airing yet. --2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:A508:C6A:37D6:94C2 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It would have been helpful to explain that in your edit summary. — Manticore 07:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, i'm kinda new here, but it seems we've been editing each other concerning Al Rifai page. Please do visit https://alrifai.com as changes have been done to the company - they were acquired in March of 2021 and the information in the article should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyLadkany (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@JoeyLadkany: Hi there, thanks for your message. It's important that any updates to this article adheres to Wikipedia's policies. I reverted some of your edits as they read very much like an advertisement. You also can't just copy and paste the content of the company website, which it seems you had done, as this would be a copyright violation as well as being inappropriate for other reasons. If you are new to editing here, I would suggest Wikipedia:Five pillars as a good starting point for you to read. — Manticore 08:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Guns are basically everywhere in New York." Is a subjective sentence. "Basically everywhere" is not an objective statement.

One prisoner's ability to circumvent one prison's security is not indicative of the thousands of prisons but only that single one! This is basic.

31 one seconds is a minute time compared to other gangs, what's the sources? Yes it needs sources because one viewpoint does not make it an objective fact until independently verified by other sources as well when comparing the thousands of gangs and their "beat in" time. It is actually called "jumped in" but I'm sure a gang member isn't enough of source for an objective site such as this.

What are you not understanding about objective vs subjective when editing pages? 2603:800C:1540:60:C1D2:FCC:468B:7F35 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually don't disagree with the essence of your changes, but you're going about this the wrong way. I've already modified the article to properly request a source for one of those statements, and to remove a questionable line. You need to chill out though. — Manticore 02:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 🙏 🙏 2603:800C:1540:60:C1D2:FCC:468B:7F35 (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. This is a collaborative project, and if you see an issue you should try and address it. But if you're going to edit here you need to be more polite in your dealings with other editors. No more name calling, and no more harassing or threatening edit summaries. — Manticore 02:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, saw your message - these are some of the messages from the editor in question (CreecregofLife) "that such tantrums should be given a platform is ludicrous" and "just to be clear Mr IP 71, you are reaching SO MUCH it is embarrassing for you. It’s not childish to call your whining whining because you keep crawling back trying to get every whine out there." Last time I checked this was not appropriate behavior for adults, not that I can't or am not able to wallow in the gutter as well but I do restrain myself as an adult. Doing some quick looking around it appears to be a regular pattern of behavior by this editor and needs to be addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@71.190.233.44: If that's the case, you can report those. I sent you that message as I noticed your own message to them today didn't seem very civil. Have you considered that being impolite might encourage others to behave the same way towards you? I would suggest that if the two of you can't play nice, you don't interact. — Manticore 01:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. I walk away from the whole experience with a very different view of Wikipedia. Quite disappointing actually, I don't have any more time to waste on that person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article I cited states that Wikipedia is a public space. I couldn't find any other sources for this, hence why I cited Wikipedia. If you can find any other sources, please let me know. Username142857 (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You cited something in the Wikipedia project space, not an article. It looks like the issues here have been explained to you on the article talk page. — Manticore 04:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Everyone knows Mesopotamia was Persian-ruled in 400 BC!

This one deduced that the year range given in question on the Zodiac article unassailably falls within the reigns of the Achaemenid kings Darius II and Artaxerxes II and thus was indeed at no time other than Persian rule. Ari bn Bem (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ari bn Bem: Great, it should be no trouble to find a reliable source that states that then. It wasn't listed in the source you attributed it to; please read WP:HIJACK. — Manticore 00:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What? Who would you say was ruling it at that time, pray tell? I was not aware of any controversy... Ari bn Bem (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ari bn Bem: You can just talk normally to me here. Since you're new to Wikipedia, it's probably a good idea to have a read of our policies; Wikipedia:Verifiability in particular applies here. — Manticore 07:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, can you please explain what 'talking normally' is to you? Ari bn Bem (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I just edited out some entities owned by Disney from the list that are already defunct. (UTV Motion Pictures since 2017 according to its article; Radio Disney since 2021 according also to its article) Then you reverted it, said that there is no indication that defunct entities shouldn't be listed. Like isn't this making some readers confuse? Shouldn't they be removed already because they are no longer relevant? I don't understand. I need your explanation about this situation. Thank you for your time. TotoroRG (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@TotoroRG: Why should former entities be removed? What about their inclusion do you find confusing? This is an encyclopedia, it covers history as well as current affairs. Just because something has ceased to operate doesn't make it less significant. I can see you've raised this question on the article talk page, which is a great first step. You should now wait to see what other editors say there; on Wikipedia we call this building consensus. — Manticore 07:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grey's Anatomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood. 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) 06:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Birth date of Nigel Kneale is 28 April, not 18 April

Hi there

Sorry for reverting the changes you made to this.

Please see this Twitter discussion: https://twitter.com/MrGeetsRomo/status/1510211587319209986

citation for Nigel Kneale's birth date is here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OI5XDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT9&lpg=PT9&dq=%22there,+in+barrow-in-furness%22+andy+murray&source=bl&ots=gXlQj52zA1&sig=ACfU3U08Avv7M72dLVFzHQitDJyDqirIxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiBzs_Z1_f2AhVSa8AKHSAhCeAQ6AF6BAgEEAM#v=onepage&q=%22there%2C%20in%20barrow-in-furness%22%20andy%20murray&f=false

I'm afraid I'm not skilled enough in editing Wikipedia to change the citation myself. Perhaps you could do so?

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.166.129 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've copied this across to the article talk page. This is a Featured Article, so there are probably editors watching the article talk page that can assist. — Manticore 00:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your efforts in counter-vandalism... Keep it going! Volten001 ☎ 23:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Volten001: Thank you, that's very kind! — Manticore 08:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Most welcome and happy editing! Volten001 ^☎ 09:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

i became quite befuddled editing the super computer page, and i welcome your assistance/guidance. ✨ SkidMountTubularFrame (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. — Manticore 12:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Gene Shinozaki's birthday is NOT MAY 28, 1991. According to his life via YouTube channel (during LoFi Fridays), his REAL BIRTHDAY is MAY 29, 1990. Please kindly correct his birthdate.

Please watch his video via YouTube: https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxc_eDi9smUtR4U2bR5XlYdU64I_y37_Pw Thedaaniiofficial (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thedaaniiofficial: Hi there. YouTube is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. To change that person's date of birth, you would need to find a reliable source. — Manticore 10:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

My friends are already report about his wrong birthday (May 28, 1991) so many times. Thedaaniiofficial (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thedaaniiofficial: They need to be able to cite a reliable source to support any change. I can't see any discussions about this on the article talk page, but that's a good place for you to raise this issue. — Manticore 09:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manticore. Nice to see you here. Thanks for getting this changes to my notice. I saw it was a nominal change with a reference. Though cannot be accepted as reliable but owe responsibility for same. As far as my role is concerned believe me I do in the best interest of Wikipedia though sometime slips happen. Will keep trying my best. Thanks in advance and looking forward to work with you. Gardenkur (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Gardenkur: Thanks for replying, but I'm not sure I understand your message. The changes you accepted were not supported by a reference. They were introduced into the middle of a sentence which already had a reference. Do you understand the difference? The edits were also poorly written, with spelling and grammar errors. I understand that mistakes happen, and this was not a huge mistake, but if you are to continue as a pending changes reviewer you need to be more careful. — Manticore 11:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manticore. Thanks for your reply. I mistook it as supported with reference. Really sorry as I went through it minutely. Noted your caution with apologies. Thanks again. Gardenkur (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Earl of Chester title

Hi, yes I wrote in the comment section that it was awarded to Arthur, Prince of Wales, Henry VIII as a child in 1504, and to Edward VI.

Per example, on Edward VI of England page, the reference number 7 is as follow :

Page 182 Erickson, Carolly (1978), Bloody Mary, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-11663-3 Erickson, Carolly (1978), Bloody Mary, New York: Doubleday, ISBN 978-0-385-11663-3 2607:FA49:1A44:4700:E071:D866:9A8A:61EB (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The appropriate place to place a reference is in the article, not in your edit summary. I would suggest you have a read of the links I included in my message; Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. — Manticore 02:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I added information about the town having the worlds largest fishing fly. You removed it for advertising so I removed any mention of the business that owns it. I hope that is better. Tanachu1776 (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Tanachu1776: Thanks for letting me know. I've removed the information you re-added as it is not referenced. All information included on Wikipedia must be verifiable and supported by a reliable source. Before re-adding the information, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners. — Manticore 00:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&type=revision&diff=1104792863&oldid=1104792367

Statements about Fred Saberhagen and Gregory Benford also aren't sourced. Why require a source only for this one? 177.248.158.108 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. This process is called pending changes review. I was reviewing one particular edit you made which introduced material not supported by a source. Information on Wikipedia should be supported by a reliable source, and verifiable by other editors and readers. If you find other material on Wikipedia not supported by a reliable source, you can (usually) remove it, or you can help out by finding a source. — Manticore 12:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess you'd recognised that they were a sock, whereas, being unfamiliar with the article, I thought they might be a particularly inept newbie editing in good faith. Apologies for treading on your toes, and thank-you for the cleanup work. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wham2001: Don't worry about it at all! I appreciate you reaching out though. — Manticore 08:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that, i stuffed a source in. 60.242.41.151 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Conversation moved to your talk page. — Manticore 08:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your note about my recent edit to this page. What I added were only facts, all verifiable public knowledge. I don't know the procedure to support the new information with a citation to a reliable source (other than myself), but if you do by all means proceed. The purpose of my edit was to clear up any confusion or misinformation. PierCal (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@PierCal: Thanks for your message. As explained on your talk page, you need to find a reliable source to support your contributions. This is especially important when writing about a living person. You are not a reliable source. If the information is easily verifiable as you say, it is your responsibility to provide this source, not for me or anyone else to find it for you. If you need help with learning how to reference, I would recommend this help page as a good starting point. — Manticore 03:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, you've reversed my edits on OXO-biodegradation, this returned sources that only ostensibly support the points made in the article. I'd like to understand what I can do to avoid this kind of blanket reversal in future because the Justification COI doesn't ring true with me Plasticomp (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Plasticomp: Hey there. I noted in my revert that these edits appeared to be a conflict of interest on the basis that your username seemed to imply a connection with a plastics company. I'm happy to accept your statement that you don't have a conflict of interest with the subject material. However, I still would have reverted these edits as they appear to represent original research and removed referenced material from the article. I'll admit to not having any particular expertise in the subject, so I would suggest that you propose your changes on the article talk page, where interested editors can contribute to building a consensus to make these changes. I hope this helps, and thanks for reaching out. — Manticore 06:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello dear, about the page Iraqi Air Defence which is mostly Arabic links on the English Wikipedia and also many problems of types and copying errors from Arabic to English, as well as the lack of any clear pictures of Iraqis in this air defense, I am trying to improve this page But you're re-version back to the previous, can you help us improve the page? Koyaaa (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And I was trying to put a link to the information I put but it has been reverted

Most respectful to you. Koyaaa (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You have changed details on this article without providing a reliable source. — Manticore 20:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I recently noticed you rollbacked an edit to App Store (iOS/iPadOS) with the edit summary "block evasion". I'd like to know which block that IP was evading and whether or not the other IP I reverted is also evading a block. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Hey there. The editing pattern of the IP I initially reverted (2804:14C:B52B:826E:503D:9E09:CECB:1C9A (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) appears similar to 187.180.49.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is currently subject to a 3 month block. The IP you've just reverted (181.216.222.24 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made similar edits; mass changes to logos within infoboxes, with no other editing contributions. — Manticore 16:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manticore

You recently rolled back my edit to the ClientEarth page due to conflict of interest (I see your point: I was aiming for transparency!)

I was rolling back a recent edit to the ClientEarth page describing us as a left-wing organisation. It isn't supported by the source at all (which, incidentally, is also behind a paywall for most people). Nor is it supported by wider evidence: we have brought legal cases against governments of all stripes; our aim is environmental not political. It makes it harder for us to achieve our charitable aims if our work is mischaracterised this way.

Could you advise me on where I might flag this edit to get it independently reviewed?

Thanks for your help, and for your work in general.

Mike Mike at ClientEarth (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mike at ClientEarth: Hi there, thanks for reaching out. I've taken a closer look at the article history and have removed that information as it is unsourced. I appreciate the effort you have gone to be transparent about your association with this organisation. In future though, I recommend that you not edit the article directly but rather raise any issues you have with its contents on the article talk page. For more advice on managing a conflict of interest, take a look at the message I left you and the links to relevant Wikipedia policies. — Manticore 11:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Will do, and all noted. Thank you for taking the time to look at this again, very much appreciated. Mike at ClientEarth (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Manticore, I saw you reverted my edition regarding the Paul Preston aseveration. Please, notice it is not an interpretation. I don't know the page in the english version, but it can be found in the page 463 of the catalan edition. I could scan it, but I don't know how to show to you, but you can find another reference to this and other violent actions against catalan speakers in following article: https://www.vilaweb.cat/noticies/benvinguts-guerra-tres-anys/ . Please, let me ask to undo your reversion. 93.176.132.255 (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The edit I reverted does appear to contain an interpretation, which is against our policies (see WP:SYNTH). As you've pointed out, I (and other editors and readers) don't have access to the reference you've used. However, if I take your edit at face value, it seems that the source talks about "the murder of peasants for no other apparent reason than that of speaking Catalan". There is a further problem that your citation is not placed at the appropriate point in the sentence, and for some guidance on that I would suggest you visit Help:Referencing for beginners. The issue that caused me to revert this edit was your interpretation that "fascist aggression towards the Catalan language practically led to an ethnic conflict". The text of your edit suggests that this was a conclusion you've drawn, rather than something specifically contained in the reference you've cited. I hope this helps. — Manticore 20:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand now, many thanks. The problem was the interpretation of ethnic conflict, that, you are right, it is my interpretation. So, I'll not discuss about it, but only to comment two subjects between us. The first is that if you kill persons only because speak another language, so because are from other culture (with other history, language, values, etc.,... so another etnia) it means an ethnic conflict. The second is, in case you understand catalan and spanish languages, to read the book: "Racisme and supremacisme polítics a l'Espanya contemporania" (ISBN 9788418849107), with hundreds of references that points to an ethnic conflict. Anyway, returning to above, I understand I could cite Preston: "the murder of peasants for no other apparent reason than that of speaking Catalan", but it is my translation to english of catalan text, so the real english text could be different. Oh tragedy ;) 139.47.115.226 (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manticore, I'm confused as to why outdated, incorrect information was restored on the basis that it was hidden 108.41.81.126 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It appears that your recent contributions to this article have been unhelpful, as all have been reverted. If you are going to claim that something is "known", as you did in your edit that I declined, you should support it with a reliable source. — Manticore 01:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Then why doesn’t the note have a reliable source? Why doesn’t it cite the pages that state what the note claims it states? 108.41.81.126 (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Manticore,

I wrote this first as a reply to you from my Wiki-page but then just now posted it on your User: Talk: Manticore page per your suggestion.

I am new to Wiki and I read the wizards and tutorials. Please define specifically with objective criteria and principles what about my edit is "inappropriate for an encyclopedia" among Wikipedia published standards as I am only asking for the same guidelines applied to all editors?

I thought my edits would be welcome because Wiki is asking for "additional citations" on this page. Please see the first Wiki paragraphs on the page that say: "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)...This article possibly contains original research. (June 2018) ...This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2018)"

I also thought my edit (adding one cited sentence that was about one of the first documentaries -1964- of surfing Pipeline) was at least in the same category as existing accepted edits. The page already references media, especially movies about Pipeline in numerous places. Please see as some examples of which I could use many (but I don't want to belabor the point):

1. "The name was first used in Bruce Brown's movie Surfing Hollow Days. It also lent its name to a 1963 hit Pipeline by surf music rockers The Chantays."
2. Footnote13 "Pipe Masters Mens Championship Tour Final Heat". World Surf League. Retrieved 2019-12-20.
3. "Media[edit]
   • The 1974 episode "The Banzai Pipeline" of Hawaii Five-O was filmed at Pipeline.
   • The 2002 surfer movie Blue Crush was filmed at Pipe.
   • The 2007 film Pipeline featured events at this location.

Rinorino1947 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...replying to

Manticore wrote:

Hello, I'm Manticore. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Banzai Pipeline have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. — Manticore 23:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rinorino1947 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. — Manticore 01:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

hey manticore this is shubham singh i have mistakenly edit the page of srgun luthra wikipedia page. buddy i need your help to how to edit wikipedia pages. can you teach me in this Shubhamsingh7863 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Shubhamsingh7863: We have a range of help pages available, perhaps start out at Help:Editing and see where that takes you. You can experiment using your sandbox, but not in articles please. — Manticore 21:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Manticore,

I replied to your comment on my User Talk where you moved our ongoing discussion about the Banzai Pipiline Wikpage and wondering if you didn't see it since you have yet to reply there. So I'm sending it to you here on your User Talk page where you had us start our conversation.

This is you: Hi again. If you click the link I sent above - copied here for convenience - you will see an overview of the edit you made, that I reverted. You have inserted an external link in the word "the" which opens the article. On the same overview, if you scroll down to read the surfers section, you will see what I mean about the paragraph not making sense after your edit. You do not need my permission to edit this article. But if you are new to editing Wikipedia, it might be a good idea to practice in the Wikipedia:Sandbox, or to ask for editing assistance at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. — Manticore 09:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: Hi Manticore,

Thank you for directing me to that link. Now I see what you are speaking about. That looks like a significant problem and I apologize for inadvertently doing that. I didn't see that on this Wiki page of View history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1128220462&oldid=1127661672&title=Banzai_Pipeline I don't think I would have seen it even if it was available to see on View history as I never had any intent to add an edit to the first word of this article and my eyes never returned to that first section of the page after I made the edit to the "Surfers" section lower down.

I appreciate that you said "You do not need my permission to edit this article." But I don't want you to recommend that I be punished while I'm just starting out as a new Wiki editor. What I am really asking is whether you reverting all my edits was a blanket reaction to the mistake at the first word of the article and you are really OK with restoring the only edit I did intend, which was in the "Surfers" section much lower in the article. Are there issues with that one sentence? Will it be considered disrespecting Wikipedia and your efforts to make a presentable encyclopedia to restore that sentence?

The reasons I believe my edit in the "Surfer" section should be allowed are explained in my previous reply. In addition, to support my explanation that the placement of an external link at the start of the article was totally inadvertent is that I first added the one sentence edit (in 2 simple edits) to the "Surfer's" section. I don't think you have explained any issues with that one intentional sentence in the Surfer's section. Hours later, I went back to add a few surfer names and more citations (external links and footnotes) to the Surfer's section to support that one sentence. Can you see time stamps to support this? This is where I was trying to insert the "Catri" link that you found in the first word of the article so this error may have happened in that return edit hours later. Since I made other edits at that time, it is odd I cannot see them in the link you sent or in View history. I'm wondering if these other edits reside somewhere else or if you deleted them? I can see, though, that you (or another editor?) removed the last bulleted line in the Media section. Why can I see this but not your editing of all of my submissions in the Surfer section? Rinorino1947 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Rinorino1947

Rinorino1947 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rinorino1947: I don't actually think there is anything further to discuss. I have explained, very patiently and in great detail, why I reverted your edits to that article. I have also provided you with links to our policies and resources for getting support as a new editor. — Manticore 11:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Manticore. I will interpret your reply as indicating you found nothing wrong with my intended edit to the “Surfers” section of the Banzai Pipeline wikipage and that you have no issues with that edit. Since your only articulated explanation was regarding the inadvertent and unintended edit to the first word of the Banzai Pipeline wikipage, I was trying to understand very patiently and in great detail why you “reverted” all of my edits en masse. Since you no longer wish to clarify the mass revert as it applies to my intended edit, I will continue with my edits to the Banzai Pipeline wikipage per Wiki policies and resources and expect that you will not perceive this as controverting the intent of your edit. Rinorino1947 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rinorino1947: Please do not misrepresent my messages to you. I have explained twice that there was a problem with the content of your edits.

The other content that you introduced was in the middle of an existing sentence, rendering the paragraph nonsensical. [1]

if you scroll down to read the surfers section, you will see what I mean about the paragraph not making sense after your edit. [2]

As you still don't seem to understand what I'm referring to, or how to view your own edits to articles, I've copied the text of the article before and after your changes here.

Before:

A few of the notable surfers at Pipeline are Phil Edwards (surfer) (who is credited as the first person to surf it), Butch Van Artsdalen, Gerry Lopez, Mike Stewart, Shaun Tomson, Mark Richards, Wayne 'Rabbit' Bartholomew, Peter Townend, Michael Ho, Simon Anderson, Tom Carroll, Sunny Garcia, Kelly Slater, Danny Fuller, Jamie O'Brien, Rob Machado, Andy Irons, Mick Fanning, Gabriel Medina, John John Florence and Italo Ferreira.

After:

A few of the notable surfers at Pipeline are Phil Edwards (surfer) (who is credited as the first person to surf it), By 1964, surfing Pipeline was featured in movies, including Bud Browne's "Locked In" which showed 1963 footage of Dick Catri, John Peck, among other surfers. Butch Van Artsdalen, Gerry Lopez, Mike Stewart, Shaun Tomson, Mark Richards, Wayne 'Rabbit' Bartholomew, Peter Townend, Michael Ho, Simon Anderson, Tom Carroll, Sunny Garcia, Kelly Slater, Danny Fuller, Jamie O'Brien, Rob Machado, Andy Irons, Mick Fanning, Gabriel Medina, John John Florence and Italo Ferreira.

Do you understand now that your edits made this paragraph unreadable? — Manticore 22:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you - thank you for your reply, Manticore. I finally understand your point completely and I apologize for my edit that probably should have been a free-standing paragraph said differently and/or just listed in the Media section. Rinorino1947 (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As I saw many sources fearing that Euphoria: Season 3 and HOTD: Season 2 premiering by 2024, then HBO and HBO Max will cause a release date clash. I know that this is an issue about release dates relating to HBO Series problem. CastJared (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@CastJared: Feel free to re-add that information if you can find a reliable source that states that. Inline citations are required on Wikipedia; see Help:Referencing. — Manticore 09:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello may I ask why you are undoing edits on the above homepage ?. O'Sullivan was nominated for the BBC award etc. So why did remove the material please ?> 92.251.226.190 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Its clear that you are a sock puppet for User:DooksFoley147. Nigej (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not ok 92.251.226.190 (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading the reverts and the edit summaries, or did you just see an IP editing and automatically revert because that's easier? 142.181.101.42 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read the content and edit summaries when I reviewed the edits, in addition to reviewing the recent page history. I was the reviewer who first approved your removal of references to Toronto on 23 December 2022. However, we have a clear policy about how to handle situations like this; WP:BRD. I've linked to the policy twice now in edit summaries. You made a bold edit to remove references to Toronto (which I approved). Another editor disagrees with you and partially reverted these changes. Now you need to enter into a discussion on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. Imagine if the two of you just kept reverting each other - we'd get nowhere. Finally, I didn't appreciate the tone of your message to me, or the nasty little edit summaries you've used to attack other editors. If you're going to edit Wikipedia, a core policy is that you assume good faith. You haven't done that here. — Manticore 23:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Please don't remove that lines. Why you remove a line from the articl?

Hello.. I saw that you remove the lines from the page people about Sialkot. Don't remove it what is the benefit for removing lines. I ll edit according to policy and i not made any chage against the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qalab.News92 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Qalab.News92: Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your LinkedIn profile. The individuals you have repeatedly added to lists aren't notable, as has been explained to you on your talk page. Please stop doing this. — Manticore 05:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If yes, then you would already know there's not transport, if no, leave it alone. BrisJanner (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, prove to me there is Transport if that's the case, go on, seeing as you and the other guys/girls know Plymouth so well, prove to me there is transpor, I wil happily wait, works both ways does it not? If I have to prove there isn't, it's now your job to prove that there is. 😇 BrisJanner (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting 😇 BrisJanner (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@BrisJanner: I see that you have already been indefinitely blocked for making personal attacks. If you do see this reply, you might like to reflect that your conduct here - being impolite, and assuming bad faith - might well have contributed to that block. In the event you are unblocked, I would suggest you read our policy on original research. To answer your question, and hopefully illustrate why that policy is important, no, I am not from Plymouth. But if I wanted to know more about Plymouth, I would like to be able to read an entry on Wikipedia that is reliable, meaning that it is well referenced, and has sources that I can read to verify its factual accuracy. That particular goal is undermined when editors introduce their own original research, perhaps assuming that their local knowledge is somehow superior. Your edits to Home Park removed referenced content in favour of your apparent local knowledge, which is why I reverted them. — Manticore 09:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

	The Pending Changes Reviewer's barnstar
	You were one of the top 5 most active pending changes reviewers in the last 30 days. Great job! ––FormalDude (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thanks, that's very kind of you! — Manticore 10:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You Reverted my edit of CB's profile. I know him personally and his name is not Christopher Blake. how did you get this information. His name on his ID and ss is CB Bucknor. We would like changed and I can give you proof that I know him personally. thank you 2603:6010:2E02:8ECB:78A1:5D18:EEC5:274 (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't get this information, it is on the article and seems to be supported by this source. You can raise this on the talk page of the article if you think there is an issue here, but knowing an individual personally will not hold much weight. You will need to provide a reliable source that supports the changes you want to make to the article. — Manticore 00:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

How should one cite a pronunciation based upon phonetics? From what I've seen there is little to no evidence that pronunciations are or should be cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.115.9.109 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. The existing pronunciation is supported by a reliable source. If you wish to add an alternative, you should find a reliable source that supports that. — Manticore 00:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

why did you revert my talk addition? KhlavKhalash (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Because article talk pages are not forums. I have left you a message explaining this. — Manticore 07:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You ask why would we cherry pick reviews for a couple of episodes for an entire show?. We (I) didn't. Please read note "a" in the Notes section. Then, check which seasons Rotten Tomatoes has review scores for. Then, maybe, you'll undo your removal edit? --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:94A3:EA1F:E089:3B87 (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, your change of link1 literally (re-)broke the internal link. I'm guessing you didn't even take the time to check why this IP editor made that change. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:94A3:EA1F:E089:3B87 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, never mind, my bad. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:1AAF:710B:A095:15DC (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I still don't think that information should be included on a list article. If you disagree with my change, happy for you to raise it on the article talk page and see what others editors think. — Manticore 05:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you have been reverting edits performed by an account now blocked as a sock (Cahnc). While many (indeed, the majority) of their edits were disruptive, some were actually substantive revisions. As a general guideline, not every edit performed by a user blocked for vandalism, disruption, or sockpuppetry has to be reverted. I've reverted some of your reversions but recognize the good-faith intentions behind them. Please let me know if I can help in any way. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Thanks for your message. Yes, I've been editing here a while and I'm aware of the principles behind WP:BANREVERT. If you want to take responsibility for those edits, I don't have a problem with that. — Manticore 07:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Excellent. I gladly take on any responsibility associated with those edits. Thanks for understanding and I hope to see you keeping up the good work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I appeal that you quickly review my last edits on article Simon Ekpa. The intro is obviously misleading as Simon Ekpa is not and have never called himself Leader of Biafra independence movement. Check out the references in the article and you notice that he describes himself as the Disciple of Nnamdi Kanu. Please re-review ASAP to maintain a clear information.

The page has been protected and therefore I can't edit it again but I I can give you the information which l edited there if you require I added relevant wikilinks to make it more notable. Check it out or should give you the exact edit? it. 105.112.224.1 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems that someone else has already changed this. In future, the best place for this sort of discussion is the article's talk page. You can also request an edit there if an article is protected. — Manticore 11:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up at WP:AIV a user whose name suggested they were 'underage'. I'm sure you're aware we have no age limit, but it was helpful to be informed of their username. I have attempted to engage with them and to explain the wisdom of a WP:RENAME.

I also note that your own signature is currently in breach of guidelines as it does not contain a link to your talk page. It would be a good idea to address that. See WP:CUSTOMSIG/P and especially the bullet point which states: A customised signature should provide an easily identified link to your talk page. You are encouraged to also provide a link to your user page. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops - I just spotted that it does actually contain a link to your talk page, but that it is not at all easily easily identified because it is the same colour as the first half of your username. I'd still suggest you make the distinction slightly easier to detect. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: No worries. I'm broadly aware of the age-related policies, but it seems unwise to advertise so blatantly. Thanks for the heads up on my signature, it's been the same design for a while (since 2008). I've updated to just link to my talk page. — Manticore 00:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

How is it unscoured, it is not. Smash Mouth was really in the Kim Possible episode Queen Bebe. That doesn't make it unscoured at all. 2601:196:4A01:D770:B630:D239:EF6A:E453 (talk) 16:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I said it was unsourced, not unscoured. Please familiarise yourself with Help:Referencing for beginners. — Manticore 11:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Congratulations on ranking among the top three most active pending changes reviewers during the previous 30 days. Fantastic work. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 16:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DreamRimmer: Thanks, I appreciate it! — Manticore 07:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You've earned this Barnstar, for being so fast at reverting vandalism and helping to keep Wikipedia clean. Well done! IsaacAndHisIsaac (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@IsaacAndHisIsaac: Thanks, a good team effort from you and Nythar I reckon! — Manticore 01:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello from Stacy of Batala NYC

Hi there, thank you for reverting the edits back that dobra 1908 made. I am the original founder of Batala NYC. The current iteration is engaged in a legal battle with me over the rights to the original name, as well as trying to erase the history from the internet. This wiki page will be one of the last historical references on the origins as they are slowly going through and deleting things. Batala NYC and Batala New York are two very different entities. Batala NYC was a single member LLC in the State of NY-a business. Batala New York, Inc is a 501c3 Non profit organization that was founded sometime in late 2016. Batala NYC was not a black lead organization, Batala New York is a black lead organization. BatalaMaestro (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@BatalaMaestro: Hi there. Your message suggests that you may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policy on managing conflicts of interest. I will leave you a message shortly with some more information. — Manticore 02:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see ok then, thank you for the info. BatalaMaestro (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

FYI, the user blanked a final warning just yesterday [3] and also blanked recent warnings on his IP for similar edits 112.204.188.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Meters (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Meters: Thanks for letting me know. — Manticore 09:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Afternoon.

You reverted my edit here for it lacked sources. I have reverted it back whilst adding many sources which back that statement up and prove that the Dark Knight had sufficient acclaim and was hailed by enough people as being one of the best superhero/movie outright of all time.

If you still think the edit was inappropriate, I'd be glad to start a discussion page. just wanted to give you a heads up.

Thanks for your time. Becausewhynothuh? (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. — Manticore 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Manticore. As edit summary of your recent edit of Untitled Grand Theft Auto game, you wrote: "this could easily be confused as referring to September 2023". Are you willing to explain to me how the (former) phrase could easily be confused as referring to September 2023? Thank you. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:DF5E:2855:F417:DD5B (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. You wrote "the following September" after a mention of February 2022. To me, this seems to refer to September 2023 rather than September 2022. To illustrate what I mean, it's currently Friday. If I was to write "the following Saturday," this would most commonly be interpreted as meaning Saturday in a week from now, not tomorrow. I think there are less ambiguous ways of wording this sentence, which is why I reverted your edit. If you feel strongly about the wording of this sentence, could I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page. This will allow interested editors to weigh in on the discussion. — Manticore 11:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you edited the Yom Kippur article via a "null edit to clear pending changes review". I'm not sure what this means; can you clarify? If I made some mistake while enabling pending changes protection on this article, please feel free to explain what I did wrong and what I should have done instead. I enabled this protection because an IP editor was repeatedly vandalizing the article and ignoring repeated reversions and warnings to stop. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Richwales: Hey Richwales. I certainly don't think you did anything wrong either in enabling pending changes protection on this article or in the way you applied it. I just couldn't get that article to clear from Special:PendingChanges. I've seen this happen before with recently enabled protections. Usually it resolves itself, but sometimes not. I thought editing after the protection was enabled might have done the trick, and it seems to have done so. — Manticore 23:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Manticore, just a friendly note that this edit should not have been accepted as WP:KNOWYOURMEME is an unreliable source. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. — Manticore 21:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Tell me the page is on Navadurga or Goddess Durga? If you read the references given even there its not written that Laxmi is Durga. Please Please Please read the references carefully even there its not written that Laxmi is Durga.AarushSinha10 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Please keep article content discussion in a central place, the article's talk page at Talk:Navadurga. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but why was that edit unnecessary? Drmies (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hey Drmies. I assume you're referring to this edit. Wikipedia:Short description says that "articles for which the title is sufficient to fully describe the article" don't require a short description. My apologies, I probably should have included a link to WP:SDNONE in my edit summary so that my explanation was clearer. — Manticore 04:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Manticore, I appreciate that--thanks. I had no idea we had such a rule. The thing is, I checked that article on my phone real quick after I saw your edit, and on mobile it says "+ Add article description", which looks really unattractive, but I guess that shouldn't dictate our editing behavior here. What you say makes sense and I'm glad I know that. Maybe one of these developers can make it so that if there's no short description, nothing shows up. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I declined your U5 nomination for User:Rookie162, although the page is a bit rambling and verbose, and contains what appears to be a rant against other editors (which I've removed), it's still basically a description of what the user does. Although I will note they haven't edited for 15 years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You may need this. Vandal blocked. Maliner (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

My reference isnt incorrect as is latest one from december 2023 Hello my friend, you told me that my edit was wrong but i did got 100% proof of newly update imf gdp growth forecast for bangladesh. I believe if i made a mistake I apologize butmy edit was not incorrect as there is true evidence and I can format it properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A75B:7100:106E:CB7F:92D0:888B (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't tell you that your edit was wrong, I said that it was formatted improperly and that the reference tag you were trying to use was already defined. It looks like you've since resolved this, but if you need further guidance please have a read of Help:Referencing. — Manticore 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Manticore whats good bro. can u accept these edits on strouds page por favor. Hope u gave a great day. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of active reviewers, no doubt someone else has gotten to it by now. — Manticore 11:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Why remove the text from Rama Raksha Stotra? Why kashmiri's edit should not be considered as vandalism?

In reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Raksha_Stotra, I see you reverted back edit by 78.147.61.231 and Holmart to last version by Kashmiri. I cannot imagine what issue can there be if the hymns stay there. Can you please explain why you think that the hymns should go and importantly, why Kashmiri's edit not be considered as vandalism?. To me it seems you are supporting vandalism, even unknowingly. I am contacting kashmiri too, before reporting him for vandalism. ShekonTekon (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@ShekonTekon: This isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute. Best you learn the difference before assuming bad faith and accusing experienced editors of vandalism. There is a policy justification for the removal of this content - WP:NOFULLTEXT - and it was provided in the edit summaries. You are free to report it wherever you'd like, you'll be told the same thing there. But if you want to approach this dispute constructively, the place to start this discussion is on the article talk page. — Manticore 11:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Start a topic on the supplied talk page for the article. You don't gain anything by pushing a POV which seems to be unsupported. Headtothestripe (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Headtothestripe: My POV is that this individual appears non-notable, which other experienced editors agree with. What is your connection to this person? I note your removal of the edit warring notification I placed on your talk page; it will be taken in future that you have understood the contents of that message. — Manticore 05:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not wishing to engage with you. Leave it alone. Headtothestripe (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Headtothestripe: This is my talk page, and you started this conversation. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, if you are not mature enough to engage in that environment, then you are free to log out and discontinue editing. — Manticore 07:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Im sorry if my English is bad. Please help us to improve article about Muslim World. Please feel free to fix the sentence, grammar or anything else. Please help us... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.140.166.67 (talk • contribs)

Why you revert this sourced edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.124.28.24 (talk • contribs)

As I explained in my edit summary, you should write the article first. — Manticore 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you joking? Your reasoning is poor and nonsensical. The 11th of June it's officially the International Day of Play, as established by the United Nations. That the specific page of this day does not exist does not mean that it should not be mentioned. Just because it doesn't exist on wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist in real life. Are you kidding me? At no time have I established any link to a page to create. 185.124.28.24 (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I will notify the administrators of your reversals. You are removing sourced content justifying that there is no specific page in wikipedia. Just because it doesn't exist an specific page on wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist in real life. Its not necessary to create first an article of this. 185.124.28.24 (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

You are welcome to notify whoever you would like. I, and now other editors, have explained the Wikipedia policies that are relevant here. You are choosing to ignore them, and to contravene them by engaging in an edit war over something quite trivial. — Manticore 07:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, apologies but what did I do on SC that is disruptive? Farmzboi (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Farmzboi: I have no idea what this is in reference to. — Manticore 21:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't revert WP:BKFIP because there is possibly some merit in his arguments however uncivilly he presents them, and I wanted to get consensus. I do not of course intend to minimize or excuse anything, but alcohol-related public order offences and sexual violence/murder are a whole different league of criminality. Perhaps you could offer your opinion on the article talk page? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

OK never mind, it seems you just reverted all his edits on principle because he's LTA. That's ok. But if you want to discuss the content issue you are welcome. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne2: Thanks for the messages. I'll leave the consensus building on that wording to the interested editors on the article talk page. — Manticore 02:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)