User talk:Fireflyfanboy - Knowledge (XXG)

1862:. I thought it was hilarious and those pompous gasbags needed to hear it (though it was kind of against the spirit of Wiki rules). I was one of those people who innocently thought the article needed an infobox and got metaphorically yelled at. All my reasoned arguments met responses of "Pound is too complex to categorize"; "we decided against it and WE are the Pound editors"; and "people who like infoboxes are unintelligent." When I pointed out that the Knowledge (XXG) categories at the bottom did the same thing as the infobox and categorized the uncategorizable Pound they ignored that and insulted me some more. It's like banging your head against the wall and clear 3819:. As I said there, this is not meant to be excessively 'harsh', and it is not meant to be permanent. It can be as short as you want it to be, but I'm seeing absolutely no indications that you can be reasoned with and will voluntarily resolve this situation, and a decisive change to your attitude and approach to editing is required if you wish to continue editing here. Please re-read all of the feedback you've received in the AN/I thread, and incorporate it into an unblock request that complies with the 3404: 1062: 3783: 3723: 3744: 3183: 734: 4158: 2922: 2886: 2302: 2667: 1030:, copyright issues are not something you put back into articles "until consensus is reached". That's not the way it works. I have removed the content again and applied revision deletion. Copyright policies are something we take very seriously on Knowledge (XXG). I realize that you put a lot of work into that list, and I'm sure it's disappointing to have it removed, but we have to respect this issue. -- 3087:

seems like I have much to learn about that. The good news is it looks like in the end the NFR got a pretty good mention in the lead after all. So hindsight being 20/20 I hope maybe we can see we all got our dander up over nothing really. Kinda silly when you think about it. Anyway, I hope your editing gets back to normal real quick so you can put this all behind you and move forward from here. :)

4010: 3841: 3491: 652: 2119: 810: 2410: 1929: 3116:

have (or would be willing to) at some point also since you can probably look back on it and see whatever part you played in it as well. Sometimes it's good to just laugh about our mistakes and do better next time since we all have our ups and downs. I hope my own example of being willing to apologize even when most people hold me harmless will help you decide on the matter. Thanks.

3291: 2374: 2178: 1890: 1671: 266: 1421: 609: 446: 359: 1337: 2009: 1554: 1479: 2508: 513:) 03:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC) so I noticed you edited the Alexander Hamilton page a few days ago. It won't let me edit it so I was wondering if you could make this edit for me. There is a small paragraph about places named after him in the legacy section and I wanted to add the fact that Hamilton County, Indiana was named after him. Thanks! 920:

death" section. Following me to another article and deleting what I do simply because you don't want to be cited as precedent against your point on another article, and also assuming that is what I'm doing and why I'm doing it without asking me, does qualify as harassment in my humble opinion, and I'm prepared to bring it up to an admin.

1006:. Please do not take this as an attack on your work. Back in 06 or 07 I spent hours and days (weeks actually) on a list like the one you have created only to have it all deleted. I know what a blow that can be. If the article is okay then that will be great. Please feel free to add your thoughts at the thread that I opened. 3115:

No problem. I'm glad a resolution was met also. It seems everyone got what they wanted since the cosmetic issues were fixed and the NFR got the proper mention it deserved in the lead. That's why I say it all does seem silly in hindsight. It's good that Flyer22 Reborn did apologize and I hope that you

2607:

I've seen plenty of other articles about world cities in both articles about the cities themselves and/or the countries that contain them, and that was the first and only reference I've ever seen to categorizing a world city as either "alpha" or "beta" within a certain criteria, particularly in intro

3546:

on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit

919:

The Harold Ramis edit literally had nothing to do with the Leonard Nimoy discussion. I saw the point made by one of the users that there were only 4 actors mentioned by the current President once they passed away, and thought because of that, I would add that to Ramis' rather threadbare "illness and

707:

3243:

I believe that, using your Wikibureaucracy and various rules that aren't cited by anyone except overzealous editors, you have inserted yourself into a situation that had previously been handled, and you are now actively making it worse. I found a source that confirms my side in an edit war, and now

3086:

Fireflyfanboy, I feel like I owe you an apology since I am a relatively new editor and I want to be supportive, but at the same time offer proper guidance and I feel like I didn't live up to the task in this case. I was really hoping to be able to promote a way to foster mutual collaboration and it

3370:

Okay, but like, what the fuck am I supposed to do. Someone posted this information about the film being a remake. An overzealous user kept deleting it. I verified this was the case through IMDb. I was told to use a source. I cited said source. Now I'm being told said source isn't good enough. What

2152:

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

1169:

you're note that your first change in to a sentence that starts "On 9 September 2015..." so no problems there as it's properly qualified. However you'll notice that the second change in that diff is in a sentence that starts "She is..." and that's not true for another 11 hours or so - it's that I

2838:

Those were pretty wacky tables, but I've added the remaining films. Its a bit of a brutal list and does not come off as very user friendly. Might need some re-organizing some day. In the meantime, I'm not sure if we should link titles to the Olympic games articles unless they at least mention the

1835:

I think you've made your point, but very badly and with gross insults. Your arguments are weak, and frankly not deserving of a response. Out of respect for the people that wrote the article, and not wanting them drawn in to the trenches you seem so eager to dig, your being reverted. I realise all

988:

You should probably bring the italics issue to a wikiproject for the MOS. Other editors and readers are not going to understand the nuances that you are using regarding this. I can tell you right now editors who clicked on the link when it is italicized will want to add {{DISPLAYTITLE:''The Great

1811:

Please don't edit war on the page again. Your comment was not deleted, it was archived, even though such a posting doesn't deserve even that. You may or may not like the lack of IB on the page, but your inflammatory soapboxing was so ridiculous it and contravened several guidelines, not least

2518:

regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is

2934:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1629:

as IMDB has… not heard of this Trump movie, and the referenced movie article similarly offers no citations or links to any external information about such a production. But, hey, seems to exist on FOD's site. It'd be awesome if you could update that with references. Thanks!

989:

Movies''}} to the article. More importantly you should not be adding the links until the article is approved. If it isn't then there is a needless red link in the articles you are adding it to. If the article is approved there is plenty of time for you to add it.

2795:

Thanks! I appreciate the good vibes! You look like a pretty experienced editor, would you mind giving me some help with the listing of the movies? I'm having a little bit of difficulty putting them all in. Here's the link to what I've accomplished so far, the

4106:

Avoiding contentious subjects is a small step, but this does not even begin to address the nature of your disruptive behavior, how we can be assured it will not happen again, and what you will edit about or do here if unblocked. I am declining your request.

974:, then it would need italicizing, because they are specifically talking about the book. Does that make sense? I think that's a pretty logical way of going about it. If you have a contrary opinion, let me know, and we can try to reach some sort of resolution. 3616:

We're literally getting into semantics about what constitutes a "revert." Was I somehow unjustified in re-adding something that had been deleted without explanation...? You're the type of editor that makes editing on Knowledge (XXG) such a pain in the

2712:

was deleted after someone added a hatnote pointing at the same article. However, since the hatnote was inappropriately piped, I've now removed it, and am hoping that change and your addition will resolve the issue of where this info belongs. Cheers! —

2314:

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

620:, so it has been removed. Knowledge (XXG) needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 1966: 1903: 1676: 475: 1170:

noticed and reverted. I apologise for not noticing the first change was correct and leaving it in. Can I suggest you self-revert that second change, or modify it so it is correct. I'm not going to because that will be edit-warring.

412:

specifically states, "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place." I have no real problem whatsoever with mentioning an upcoming release--there's no policy against that. But it needs to be made clear that the DVD is

481: 1089:

I've reverted, what were essentially, your changes to this article as it's still too early in the UK. Additionally you should know that we never use Knowledge (XXG) as a reference as it's not considered a reliable source (see

963:

When I reference specifically the book, The Great Movies, I italicize it. But since we're talking about a grand project, I wanted a way to distinguish that from the book. So, my logic is when someone says "it was added to

408:," doesn't mean that those pages meet Knowledge (XXG) policy and guidelines. Nothing should be taken for granted. Just because Shout Factory confirms it doesn't mean it's guaranteed to come out on that exact day. In fact, 968:", that does not need italicizing because it's like saying it was put in the National Film Registry, or won the Academy Award for Best Picture, it's just a honorary title. But if someone made reference to "in his book 2962: 2342: 1380:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 3937:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

488:

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

1043:

Please see my response on the talk page. I'm not precisely clear about some of the issues, and have questions that I wish you provide sufficient explanation for rather than simply dismissing and deleting.

317: 313: 2946:. 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 2326:. 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 374:

or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge (XXG), please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the

3385:

I understand the frustration, but it's quite possible a reliable source doesn't exist. I've responded to your comments on the talk page of that article, so let's continue the discussion there. --

3603:

Really. So what was your edit summary "Someone removed Trump's reaction with no reason given" all about? Last chance here before I go the 3RR noticeboard and you have to convince an admin. --

4169: 2897: 421:

come out. As for the header listing the number of episodes that have been released, it's incredibly misleading to change the episode count until those episodes are actually available. Per

2210:

Fireflyfanboy, it's been over three weeks. Please stop by the nomination page before the end of November; we need to hear from you if the nomination is to continue. Thank you very much.

450: 375: 27: 3262:, while not a policy per se, reflects the community consensus around how we can use IMDb and this is the standard that we follow. I won't revert further, but am raising the issue at 1108:

1) In the sentence "Elizabeth II is the queen of 16 of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth of Nations", the word "queen" is not a proper noun and thus shouldn't be capitalised.

3727: 2593:

Ok. I'll double check and see where it actually ranks. That still leaves you not knowing what something is and trying to use that as a reason to justify the removal of content. --

2455: 2387: 2191: 3787: 3752: 1866:, but it's been that way for years and years and years. It is frustrating, but I'm glad you're still an editor. Cheers, kudos, and best of luck to you on Knowledge (XXG). 769: 279: 1958: 1948: 1894: 3258:

Um, that's really not how Knowledge (XXG) works. This is an encyclopedia that relies on reliable, published sources. You have added a "source" that is neither.

757:

with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge (XXG)'s

4141:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

4095:

I have been a long time editor, only wish to edit again, and will avoid contentious subjects like the one that resulted in my punishment this going forward.

4001:

template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

1722: 1781: 1736: 1302: 1257: 543: 327: 666:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 570: 367: 305: 2520: 2515: 2474:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

1985:

if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the

404:

Hi. First off, let me apologize for the lack of genuine communication about this. Second, however, I have to point out that just because, in your words, "

4050: 3881: 34: 105: 378:

which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use

195: 3345: 3191: 2108: 1433: 833:

with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge (XXG)'s

1075: 946:

Since "The Great Movies" is a title, you need to be italicizing it when adding it to articles. Please go back and fix the adds you've already done.

219: 3514: 675: 3505:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 1202:

with the comment "lowercase for common noun". I'm honestly not sure who's right but it may be worth starting a conversation with them about it.

151: 768:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge (XXG)'s

2125:

Hello, and welcome to Knowledge (XXG). Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Knowledge (XXG), introducing inappropriate pages, such as

551: 4126: 3986: 3964: 3455: 2247: 1003: 1777: 1732: 1298: 1253: 539: 323: 49:

or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the

4165: 2893: 3336:

to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an

2976: 2356: 1405: 3631:

It's not "semantics", it's a factual statement, with your own words as evidence that you knew it was a revert. So enough Wikilawyering. --

2471: 1982: 844:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Knowledge (XXG)'s

4045: 3876: 363: 3101:

Thanks, I appreciate that. :) Honestly, it wasn't you as much as it was Flyer22 Reborn's behavior. I'm glad that a resolution was met.

532:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

480: 474: 45: 39: 2273: 1462: 2282: 2255: 1216:

No problem, glad we got it resolved. In regards to Queen vs. queen, would you/could you want to start a discussion on the talk page?

3748: 3506: 3436: 2722: 667: 128: 1198:

Thank you and sorry again for the misunderstanding. With respect to the queen / Queen issue the change to lower case was made by

46: 3823:. You're not being kicked off Knowledge (XXG) here, but you cannot continue editing here as long as you're not being reasonable. 1699: 146: 2972: 2352: 1401: 3522: 3444: 3341: 3307: 3051:

Sorry, I lost my temper, that editor seems to be really abrasive despite the fact that I've been doing exactly what they want.

2955: 2751:

I've raised a thing for mediation about the ongoing dispute about this template. Hopefully get this sorted one way or another

2335: 1816:, and bordered on rank trolling. If you don't like the fact it's been archived, feel free to file a complaint on the point at 1127: 838: 814: 762: 758: 742: 683: 320:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 100: 2493: 2063: 2033: 1774:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1729:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1503: 1441: 1295:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1250:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 906: 871: 799: 723: 642: 536:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3526: 3448: 687: 200: 40: 2266: 277:

has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

3070:

Running around demanding apologies when you've been telling people what idiots they are doesn't really work. I'd suggest

2417: 2154: 2130: 1936: 777: 224: 2718: 2278: 2251: 1707: 425:, I haven't reverted the edits, but I've tweaked the article so that it conforms to Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Cheers. 4023: 3854: 3534: 3412: 3351: 2755:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Template_talk:DC_Comics_films.23DC_Cinematic_Universe

2248:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Do_we_need_to_do_some_consolidation_of_multiple_overlapping_US_cannabis_articles.3F

1392:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

857: 785: 695: 4064: 3895: 3162: 2967: 2781:

F. It sure is exciting news. I figure if I start saving now I'll have enough by December :-) Thanks again and cheers.

2709: 2680: 2347: 1397: 4017: 3848: 3303: 3195: 2579:

According to the article you cited, Budapest isn't even considered an "alpha" world city, it's considered a "beta"...

1437: 1117: 830: 754: 533: 2801: 4022:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

3853:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

3475: 3042: 3005: 2475: 2461: 1986: 1972: 1766:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1721:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1685: 1429: 1287:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1242:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

518: 510: 304:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3244:

I'm being told (by a single user) that it's not legit? This is Wikinitpicking and Wikihyprocrisy at its finest...

2737: 2200: 3731: 3565: 3539: 3518: 3502: 3429: 3421: 3337: 3295: 3071: 700: 679: 663: 175: 95: 90: 4177: 3796: 1871: 1068: 1061: 1002:

Based on my past experience with a few articles like the one you have created I have started a discussion here

59: 2943: 2323: 892: 514: 506: 229: 2714: 2385:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

2189:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

1997: 1916: 1901:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

3166: 3075: 2627: 2598: 2569: 1703: 1626: 1578:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

951: 2162: 458: 180: 3816: 3676:

above this section: I would have to have been blind not to notice it when I started this thread. Any more

3517:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

2848: 2098: 1538: 1457: 1445: 1146: 678:

for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant

4161: 4150: 3756: 3510: 3440: 3311: 3263: 2889: 2224:

There has been further action with regard to the nomination. We really do need to hear from you. Thanks.

1393: 853: 781: 780:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through 671: 457:

and Knowledge (XXG) pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to

454: 235: 185: 3471: 2905: 2422: 2393: 2229: 2215: 1941: 3259: 2996:? It could go in a "Legacy" section. The lead section's sentence can be the same but without citation. 2564:

So because you don't know what an Alpha-global city is, that means it can't be included in the lead? --

1123: 1111: 617: 241: 123: 3726:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at

2901: 2434:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 2158: 1953:, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was 3121: 3092: 2196: 1611: 1288: 430: 387: 3760: 2930: 2310: 2292: 2134: 1631: 1369: 1360: 1091: 834: 409: 398: 379: 4173: 3791: 3314:, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. 2866: 2830: 2786: 2754: 1867: 1635: 1199: 1165:

OK, I've taken a look at your most recent edits and we're both right in a way. If you look at the

1031: 1011: 994: 54: 2939: 2319: 1389: 1373: 4028: 3859: 3700: 3645: 3618: 3585: 3390: 3372: 3360: 3245: 3102: 3052: 3016: 2804: 2729: 2637: 2623: 2609: 2608:

paragraphs. If there are other articles that do mention this, I welcome evidence to the contrary.

2594: 2580: 2565: 2487: 2055: 2020:

that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

1825: 1648: 1217: 1185: 1044: 1027: 975: 947: 921: 903: 868: 796: 720: 639: 621: 1813: 1592:

books/98/11/22/specials/welty-home.html At Home with Eudora Welty: Only the Typewriter Is Silent

1004:

Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions#Question regarding a list article waiting for approval

888: 2858: 2844: 2818: 2688: 2443: 2429: 2382: 2378: 2186: 2182: 2149: 2126: 2112: 2094: 2013: 1912: 1898: 1797: 1752: 1681: 1534: 1483: 1449: 1425: 1318: 1273: 1153: 593: 497: 343: 274: 2993: 2951: 2331: 1385: 1377: 4135: 4112: 3995: 3768: 3696: 3685: 3636: 3608: 3573: 3556: 3498: 3461: 2763: 2528: 2225: 2211: 1495: 1347: 970: 965: 939: 557: 270: 50: 3820: 3677: 3371:

options do I have? Christ, this is the reason I hate editing Knowledge (XXG) sometimes....

3218: 2954:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2947: 2840: 2822: 2334:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2327: 2138: 1863: 1817: 1490:

that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

1388:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1381: 1137: 1133: 852:

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through

845: 422: 3972: 3829: 3403: 3333: 3158: 3117: 3088: 2274:

Talk:Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Proposing_bold_changes_at_Cannabis_in_the_United_States

2068: 2038: 1841: 1607: 1603: 1558: 1508: 1207: 1175: 1099: 426: 383: 3812: 3222: 1141: 3425: 3299: 3187: 2992:

Hello, would you be able to put the NFR passages in the article body going forward, per

3543: 3038: 3001: 2862: 2826: 2802:

https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_Criterion_Collection_DVD_and_Blu-ray_releases#Numbered

2782: 2086: 1836:

this is very frustrating, but please modify your tone, if you want a better reception.

1771: 1692: 1526: 1292: 1007: 990: 822: 746: 704: 576: 371: 2458:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 1969:. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page 472:

With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (

3386: 3356: 3273: 3232: 3205: 2549: 2483: 2025: 1821: 1788: