User talk:LoveWaffle

726:

provide for "Fix" is closer to a word-for-word reproduction of what's provided in the source, so it needs to be tweaked further to avoid any confusion. (I find it odd that, of all the edits you have claimed to be a copyright violation, the one you defend the most, yours, is the closest to being one, so I have to question why you bring up the question of "OWNership" in the first place.) But most importantly, your edit is wrong because your stated reason for making it is that you removing a "BLATANT" copyright violation, which doesn't actually exist. Since none of what you claim to be a copyright violation is actually a copyright violation, reverting your edit it the second best way to show you your error. The best way is actually to leave a reference that you can check yourself, but you don't seem all that interested in doing that.

232:

community including myself have equal responsibility to make sure that the page was kept orderly? Instead of making the second reversion to my edit, why not properly add in the source yourself and then leave a message on my talk page about how to properly cite a source? Rather, you chose to revert my edit and leave the harshly-worded remark, which is undeniably the beginning of an edit war. Furthermore, the only reason I undid that was so I didn't have to type up everything over again (for what it's worth I didn't copy-paste the material but write it in myself so I could add in the links for the characters but that's beyond the point). Then, you went on to provoke Edit Wars again on the page for the

285:

I came here to advise you of some problematic behavior on your part, so as to not embarrass you in an open article discussion page. You were wrong, and anyone you ask here is going to tell you pretty much the same thing. If you think I am unpleasant because I call you on that, you are entitled to. If you don't wish to encounter me again, you are entitled to do that as well, but I'll advise you that the article in question is on my watchlist, and has been for some time. I am not going anywhere. This is part of growing up: learn to interact positively with people you don't necessarily want to party with. Your wiki experience will be all the more fruitful for it. -

167:. This behavior has seen administrators permanently banned from editing Knowledge. I think you are not sure as to how our policies work, and I would urge you to find an administrator friendly to you to explain these matters to you. I apologize for the harshly-worded edit summary when I reverted you for the second time, but it was your responsibility - once reverted the first time - to get on over to the article talk page and seek a resolution. Speaking frankly, there is no way in hell you are going to convince anyone by edit-warring…unless you are trying to convince people you 531: 698:

problem with escalating the problem if you continue to exhibit it. Btw, you are at your 3RR limit. The only reason you were not reported by me is not only because I don't want to cause you trouble but that you escape 4RR by less than three minutes. I'm not going to even point out that you seem to have made some sport over reverting my edits (six in less than four days), though I could easily call you onto the carpet for it.

2525: 2437: 2349: 2261: 2186: 1936: 1863: 1033: 402: 1421: 117: 281:

you are going to be able to tucker out the other person. It almost never happens, and usually draws precisely the wrong sort of attention to yourself and your edits. You think people are paying too much attention to your edits now? Build up a rep as an edit-warrior, and you'll be in for some major-league proctology involving an electron microscope.

201:

plagiarism, then I apologize for my ignorance, but then again I've only been following the precedent set well before I started editing. In addition, I also see that you've labeled that source as unreliable, when it has been the source not only for similar edits in the past but is still used as a source on the page.

994:, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting 898:

2. I was never under the impression that Marvel ran that site, but I didn't know it was a fan site. I admit it's hard to discern sometimes whether a site is considered "reliable"; while indications that a site is a wiki or user-generated (such as the presence of an "edit" button or "contribute" link)

730:

I find it humorous you ask me to assume good faith, since I see you doing very little of that. Rather than checking a source to make sure the information is valid, you immediately assume it is a copyright violation. And even if it is a copyright violation, like the edit Bat-mite made, you revert it

325:

episode lists, fully cited and with a different wording. The source has been considered reliable in the past. And if it makes you feel any better, I'll leave a message on your talk page when I make those. If you see problem with either of them, please simply fix my edit before things get blown out

309:

Furthermore, I'd like to ask why you simply didn't fix the edits yourself if you recognized that my edits were against the accepted style of the site? When Grammarxxx asked me to provide a source to back up my edit, I provided that source, albeit in the incorrect fashion. But at that point, you had

284:

You are relatively new here, so you should be asking a lot more questions than you are. You see my refutation of your edits as "unpleasant"; I assure you, there are far more unpleasant editors in Knowledge, and I have been surpassingly kind in my evaluation of your edits.So our understanding is this:

280:

Lastly, when you are reverted, that should serve as a good indicator that your preferred editorial version is meeting with resistance, and the proper next step would be to discuss the matter with the person disagreeing with you. That would be far more logical than continuing to edit-war and hope that

200:

and perhaps on other similar pages since I'm not the only one who makes them, and they've been that way since I've started editing (at least in a serious manner). Secondly, these are not taken from copyrighted material but from a press release made by Cartoon Network. If re-posting that material is

1062:

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

725:

Your edit was wrong. For one, "the Team" is a proper noun, so replacing the "T" with a lower-case "t" is in error. If you want to add "members of the..." back into the synopsis, be my guest. But don't claim that the synopsis is a copyright violation when you do so. Second, the brief synopsis you

2054:

is a reference that lists his birthday as January 31. I've seen that resource used as a source for other actors' birthdays, so if that isn't good enough I don't know what you're looking for. Clearly the page treats sources differently from other Knowledge articles, so I have no idea how to add this

790:

was clearly disruptive enough to be called vandalism, the others you reverted were not. While those edits did involve the apparently arbitrary replacement of valid TV Guide citations with ToonZone citations (adding Toonzone would've been fine, since that source is reliable enough to be cited in the

615:

Apology accepted. If Bat-mite's edit was not properly sourced, I would understand reverting it. I've done that myself quite a few times on this page. But since it was sourced, you should have assumed good faith and re-worded the edit yourself as opposed to simply deleting it. Doing otherwise is

817:

I have changed the protection level of the article to semi-protection, in order to prevent only new and unregistered editors from editing for now, as I do not believe the recent conflict constitutes an edit war. I have also left messages on the talk pages of those IPs, appropriate to each of their

697:

You should probably assume good faith a wee bit more. Let me ask you, point blank: was my edit wrong, or were you just preferring your own? Coz, I know my edit was perfectly fine, and if its the latter, you might want to check yourself. OWNership is not a good quality in an editor, and i have zero

583:

is going to garner you the worst sort of response from me, LW. If I suggest you cowboy up and do a little work, then consider doing it. Edit-warring with me is only going to end with you on the wrong side of a trout-slap and block. Please be more thoughtful in the future, please, and we can avoid

313:

Finally, I do not find you "unpleasant" because you refute my edits. I've had many edits on this wiki and elsewhere reverted in the past yet I can remain on at least amicable terms with the editor who made the reversion. I find you "unpleasant" because you have been rude and abrasive towards not

268:

is present elsewhere doesn't make it appropriate or allowable. When we are supposed to add a plot summary in the area and we life - word for word - material from another source, it is by definition plagiarism. Even if we cite it, we are supposed to paraphrase in such a way so as to not infringe on

2149:

It's a core policy that - as you said earlier - Days of the Year pages were exempt from, and they have not yet been brought up to date regarding this change. Meanwhile, there is a disclaimer at the top of the page whenever you edit it that says editors should follow the consensus format; a format

1727:

And one edit was all it took to fix the problem there. You chose to make a second edit and undo it. I don't know the status of that redirect; do any other pages link to it? Why does it exist in the first place? I didn't feel it was my place to say, so I chose to make a simple edit to one article.

1555: 623:

You also seem really trigger happy when it comes to these entries on calling copyright violations, as I can see from your edit time-stamped at 01:58 on January 1st. You don't appear to check the source being listed before calling it a copyright violation, and if you had, you would have realized

305:

page or any other similar since I've started editing, and the only reason I bring up the Young Justice wiki is to further emphasize my point of precedent. In fact, to date you are the only editor I've seen on this or any other wiki revert these edits on the basis of plagiarism. Not to say that

231:

Finally, I don't see how it was my responsibility to go over to the talk page to seek a resolution to something I believed resolved. Grammarxxx tells me I need a source, so I provide a source, albeit I provided it in the wrong fashion. At that point, wouldn't you or any member of the Knowledge

2152:

So when you revert my and the other user's edits, I don't know what is wrong with them when they follow the example set by the rest of the article. Do you not see how that can be confusing for editors? Should you really need to be in a position where you need to revert edits and contact editors

2072:

As I said above, the requirement is relatively new. There is a lot of unsourced stuff already there and a lot of folks adding new stuff don't know about the change. We're trying to start with the new additions to ensure we don't make things worse and there are folks patrolling the stuff that's

1774:

Those ten links were already in a broken state. I chose to fix one of the eleven. Rather than launch an investigation into why a double redirect existed I chose to make a quick edit to a link that appeared on Knowledge's front page. What's the big deal if an article uses one link over another

411:. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. 1948:

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.

2198:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

680:

Your rash over-zealousness in claiming copyright violations is not doing the page any favors. I will ask you to actually check the source provided for any brief episode synopses from here on out, or else I will have to consider your consistent reversions of legitimate edits

805:

errors or non-constructive edits derived from new editors' ignorance of policy, proper content guidelines, etc. While those edits were non-constructive, they were not vandalism, and should not be referred to as such in your edit summaries, since this could be construed as

240:

episode page, followed by this harassing message you left on my talk page I'm currently responding to. I am asking you to stop these provocations or else I will bring this to an administrator noticeboard. I will also remind you that you are breaking Knowledge's

979:

is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

1875:

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.

669:" Two different sentences with two different subjects. And, for the record, "the Team" is the in-universe name for the organization called "Young Justice" in the comics, so it is a proper noun. The brief synopsis provided for the episode "Fix" is " 314:

only myself but various other users, registered and unregistered, over the past few days. I recognize that there are more unpleasant editors out there - like that Lordofninjas1 person I mentioned earlier - but that doesn't make it any less abrasive.

780:

Hi, LoveWaffle. A somewhat belated welcome to Knowledge, and a thank you for your work in removing unsourced material from articles, a thankless job that not enough editors on WP take seriously. I want to thank you for monitoring the quality of the

600:

Let me try that again, prefaced by an apology. I'm sorry; it's too easy to presume the worst in editors whose face you never see, and I was guilty of that here. Let's find a way to work together and have a positive back-and-forth. Sound good? -

2100:

communicated to editors. And you still haven't addressed why you reverted the clean-up. If Banks' inclusion is the edits' only problematic part, why was that not singularly dealt with? Isn't this what the {{citation needed}} tag exists for? -

1675:

How is fixing a double redirect unnecessary and contrary to those guidelines? Links should direct readers to the correct page, and the guidelines say they should be fixed (with ongoing discussion over whether they should be allowed in certain

849:

I don't think information from ToonZone/Marvel Animation Age can be considered a valid source anymore. The people behind the site (which, as the unregistered IPs did not seem to understand, is a fan site, not one run by Marvel) issued a

757:

would answer your questions. In general, placing WP: in front of a search term in the search engine is often useful for finding a page in the namespace relating to some policy, guideline, manual of style, consensus, or other resource.

791:

Ultimate Spider-Man parent article, but that obviously did not justify removal of the TV Guide ones), the reformatting of dates via the removal of the date templates, and the addition of ordinal suffixes in the dates (which Knowledge

272:

Secondly, we don't use material from other wikis, as they are rife with speculative fancruft and make leaps in logic that are not supported by citations. Knowledge isn't some crap fan page dedicated to all things superhero; it is an

987:. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. 1293:

Hey, I'm not the one who added the initial note about not using Pietro. I was just moving it to make it more apparent to NOT explicitly use Quicksilver's given name until it's confirmed. Though, that THR thing seems to stem from

2057:

Furthermore, that doesn't explain why you would revert the inclusion of the basketball player under "Deaths" and the simple clean-up. Surely you don't need me to provide a source that says "M" comes before "R" alphabetically? -

907:, it says that it's a news and information website founded, owned and run by a three fans--Brian Cruz, Eileen Delgadillo and Colin Feder, but also that they are aided by an "army of volunteers". I just looked at RSN, and found 1558:- try it: it goes to the page about the third duke. It does say "(Redirected from Richard Plantagenet Campbell Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos)" at the top, but that indicates a 1251:

SudoGhost's warning to you. At that point, you should have read the policy more carefully and not reverted as you did. However, although you have had an account since 2010, you have made very few edits and I'm willing to

701:

Game the system again, and I'm fairly certain an admin will see the matter differently, because I'll complain to one about your editing behavior. In the meantime, use the talk page, Waffle - it's there for a reason. -

1626:

Right. Only one edit was necessary. One edit fixed a double redirect. That's why I don't understand your second edit to undo the fix and replace it with a fix of your own. It seems pointless and, at worst, smells of

1818:. 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 785:

in the face of so many non-constructive edits by so many different IP editors, something that I've had to put up with myself over the years. I just have one point that must be made regarding your reverts: While

2570: 2480: 2392: 2304: 2226: 1976: 1903: 899:

usually are a red flag for me, and the exercising of editorial control are an indication that it's not a wiki, I admit that it's hard to tell sometimes if it's a fan site, or what, which is why I often ask at

277:; as such, the contents need to conform in a very specific way. There is not supposed to be a single uncited observation or conclusion, with very singular exceptions. If you see them, you should correct them. 173:

I hope you heed my advice and use the article discussion pages in both articles to make your point. If you revert again, I will be forced to escalate matters to the appropriate administrator noticeboard. -

269:

the wording of the press release. Rather than argue that its okay to break the rules since everyone else is doing it, why not set the example and do it correctly? If you were unsure, you could have asked.

1752:

in other namespaces). Your edit left those ten articles still in a broken state; my edit fixed all of them at once. All eleven articles could have been fixed simultaneously by yourself, if you had fixed

191:

Concerning plagiarism, I'm not entirely certain what you're talking about. For one, edits such as these have been standard procedure not only on the two pages you listed but also for the same lists for

317:

But I think we can both agree that we have better things to do than continue to debate over this. I hope I can work positively with you in the future. But, until then, I'll make those updates to the

1256:

this time. I strongly urge you to leave the article alone for a while (you can continue to discuss issues on the talk page if you wish). Any arguable revert in the near future may result in a block.--

2554:. 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 2464:. 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 2376:. 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 2288:. 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 2210:. 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 1960:. 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 1887:. 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 163:

articles. In those articles you explicitly copy over material from the references you cite and paste them into the article. We have specific rules against plagiarism of this sort, under the link,

1524: 2150:

that, as of writing this, does not include sources. Nor is there anything to tell editors these pages are currently undergoing an overhaul and their edits will be held to that new standard.

1360:, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 1319:

The note says "an article from 'The Hollywood Report'", which isn't true, because its from a Tweet from an writer that works at THR cited in an article from IGN, not an article at THR.

2539: 2450: 2362: 2274: 1584:

My first edit - the one you undid - fixed a double redirect and replaced it with a link to the correct page. I do not understand why you would undo that only to link to a redirect.

427: 2050:

Where I'm confused here is that none of the other entries on the page have a source attached to them. Why is this one particular entry different from the rest? That being said,

1157:

Incorrect. You have removed the content a total of five times, four within the past 24 hours which is likely to lead to you being blocked to prevent further edit warring. See

1188: 306:

other editors wouldn't do the same, but I'm only speaking to what I've experienced. I have had no reason in the past to be unsure that was the accepted style of this site.

2096:

You can see where a problem would arise when newer edits are subjected to an entirely different standard than virtually everything else in the article and that is not

242: 2022:

did not have any source that I could add to this page to back up your addition so this change has been reverted. Please do not restore it without providing a direct

1527:

is one. If you think the page needs to be deleted, please go through the proper channels and nominate it for deletion. A single user cannot decide to erase a page.

658: 1322:

Borys Kit's Tweet only says "heard". I know THR is recognized as a credible source, but can the same be said for the Twitter account of everyone who works there?

357: 914:

I'll keep the article on my watchlist, as least for now, to help you out. Having to often up with newbies and trolls adding unsourced trivia and cruft to the

1432: 1414: 1357: 1345: 1161:

for the definition of a revert because under Knowledge's definition of edit warring you made five reverts to the article, and have been reported for such at

417: 863:

I also tried to reach a compromise with those editors by including the Animation Age episode guide as a source along with the TV Guide, and by including

1298:, or rather, the tweet noted at the bottom of that page. I don't think it's really a reliable source, but for future note, that's where it came from. 499: 624:

neither of the episode synopses you deleted were taken directly from the press release (although I did tweak one a bit more just to avoid confusion).

371:, a forum on Knowledge for new editors to ask questions about editing Knowledge, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! 1327:

I think Singer's Tweet only saying "Quicksilver" is a good enough reason to leave out "Pietro Maximoff" without getting into a tricky source issue.

1728:

Didn't want a link on the front page to direct readers to the wrong place. I do not understand why you would choose to complicate matters further.

1363:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

821:

If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of

2011: 548: 495: 301:

I will reiterate that I did not know the edits were considered plagiarism as this rule has never been enforced on edits of that sort on the

1438:

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply

489: 2593: 2503: 2414: 2326: 2240: 1990: 1917: 1843: 858:, but an episode guide that will be consistently updated by...who knows? I tried to bring this point up on the talk page, but to no avail. 782: 774: 1295: 485: 677:" Again, two sentences with different subjects. In that sense, what you provide is more of a copyright violation than what I provide. 310:

my source and you had my edit. Would it not have been easier to simply fix my edit as opposed to undoing it and provoking an edit war?

2155:

And you still haven't addressed why you reverted the clean-up. Could you please tell me what was wrong with that half of my edit? -

851: 731:

and leave a hostile, threatening description in the edit summary as opposed to assuming good faith and simply re-wording the edit.

216:. I believe he can speak to my integrity as a Wikia editor who would not vandalize a page. Furthermore, you could also talk to 26: 2589: 2499: 2410: 2322: 2236: 2123: 1986: 1913: 1839: 394: 1456:

code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

492:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1007: 969: 958: 125: 733:

Also, I have no idea what 3RR or 4RR is. I don't know what system I'm gaming but I'm open to having that explained to me.

47: 2563: 2473: 2385: 2297: 2219: 1969: 1896: 1087: 132:

and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on

52: 1830:

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

2575: 2485: 2397: 2309: 2231: 1981: 1908: 1835: 1091: 1699:. One edit is all that is needed. This fixes all pages that link to it. Any other edits are therefore unnecessary. -- 874:

So, sorry for the mess. I'll try to make my objections a bit clearer if this ever arise in the future (and it will).

1463:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:

250:

I hope we have reached an understanding, and that we do not encounter each other again as you are quite unpleasant.

795:), those IP editors were presumably newbies, and may have not known this. Vandalism is defined on Knowledge as the 265: 627:

TL;DR - We need to re-word the potential copy-vio outselves, and check the source to make sure it actually is one.

62: 908: 749:

Not that I intend participate in this discussion (I just glanced at it before composing my message below), but

707: 648: 606: 589: 290: 179: 129: 56: 476:

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

1513: 1192: 1083: 854:

saying they were going to stop updating the site. So what was being sourced wasn't a press release, like

383: 33: 22: 1373:

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

2551: 2461: 2373: 2285: 2207: 1957: 1884: 1523:

Not entirely sure, but exceptions to the rule have been made before. With comic book movies on my mind,

923: 830: 822: 763: 661:, you would see they are not word-for-word. The brief synopsis provided for the episode "Cornered" is " 77: 69: 1243:. I am going to close the report as "warned" and not sanction you because you appear to misunderstand 1187:

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

895:

1. Okay, sorry, I missed that. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Yeah, that's definitely disruptive.

1500: 1481: 1385: 1374: 141: 133: 73: 1439: 1831: 1765: 1707: 1666: 1617: 1574: 1563: 1457: 1199: 1169: 1127: 1098: 1075: 703: 644: 602: 585: 286: 175: 85: 1647: 1221: 867:

of the information on that page, but the unregistered IPs would only undo those edits. Reeks of

855: 663:

The Team is trapped inside the Hall of Justice for a cage match against a brutal alien gladiator!

368: 205: 38: 29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 911:

affirming that it's just a fan site with user-generated content, so it looks like you're right.

84:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 2533: 2444: 2356: 2268: 2194: 2132: 2079: 2032: 1944: 1871: 1853: 1807: 1798: 1509: 1044: 1017: 947: 792: 563: 537: 530: 515: 457: 440: 379: 164: 2582: 2547: 2492: 2457: 2404: 2369: 2316: 2281: 2203: 1953: 1880: 1827: 1811: 1465:{{subst:Refund/G13|Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Hulk & Iron Man: Heroes United}} 1367: 1059: 919: 826: 759: 481: 2562:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2472:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2384:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2296:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2218:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2051: 1968:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1895:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1826:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 2156: 2102: 2059: 1781: 1730: 1678: 1633: 1586: 1529: 1477: 1398: 1381: 1353: 1330: 1303: 1274: 1261: 1247:

and have apologized for your "ignorance". That said, your last revert on the article came

1213: 1144: 1110: 1050: 991: 880: 846:

being inserted into the text of the article (albeit one that can only be seen if you edit)

845:

The phrase

735: 684: 630: 327: 251: 137: 128:, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to 121: 101: 89: 378:

I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have!

224:, specifically about an incident involving one user named Lordofninjas1 and the upcoming 2559: 2469: 2381: 2293: 2215: 2015: 1965: 1892: 1823: 1815: 1758: 1700: 1659: 1610: 1567: 1236: 1196: 1166: 1124: 1095: 1071: 995: 811: 754: 2555: 2465: 2377: 2289: 2211: 1961: 1888: 1819: 1776: 1651: 1650:: it did nothing for all the other articles which have exactly the same link. As for 1628: 1505: 1428: 1253: 1244: 1217: 1162: 1158: 1079: 1055: 999: 976: 900: 868: 807: 801: 750: 506:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

408: 2144: 2127: 2091: 2074: 2045: 2027: 2023: 1696: 1012: 984: 965: 943: 939: 555: 511: 507: 449: 43: 2524: 2436: 2348: 2260: 2185: 1935: 1862: 1646:

My point is that your edit was both unnecessary and contrary to the guidelines at

356: 1473:, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission. 1070:

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's

1067:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 2119: 2007: 904: 477: 2006:

You're probably not aware but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from

1032: 401: 2019: 1299: 1257: 1240: 1040: 209: 97: 643:

You are copying the source material, word for word. Please stop reverting. -

1599:

Fixing a double redirect means that you go to the redirect page itself, and

416:

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at

1695:

and not on the page that links to that redir. The process is summarised at

1123:

You actually made five reverts, and have been reported for edit warring. -

584:

any further unpleasantness. Thank yiou for your time and consideration. -

1427:

Hello LoveWaffle. It has been over six months since you last edited your

423:

To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.

2597: 2566:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2507: 2476:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2418: 2388:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2330: 2300:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2244: 2222:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2164: 2137: 2110: 2084: 2067: 2037: 1994: 1972:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1921: 1899:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

1847: 1789: 1769: 1738: 1711: 1686: 1670: 1641: 1621: 1594: 1578: 1537: 1517: 1508:? If it did both of them, I would support it having a separate article. 1485: 1406: 1389: 1338: 1307: 1282: 1265: 1225: 1202: 1172: 1152: 1130: 1118: 1101: 1022: 1010:

or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice.

951: 927: 888: 834: 767: 743: 711: 692: 652: 638: 610: 593: 569: 544: 519: 463: 387: 335: 294: 259: 217: 183: 145: 105: 2543:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2454:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2366:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

2278:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1415:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Hulk & Iron Man: Heroes United

1358:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Hulk & Iron Man: Heroes United

1346:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Hulk & Iron Man: Heroes United

418:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Hulk & Iron Man: Heroes United

1082:

for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant

221: 81: 1814:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

2579:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2489:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2401:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2313:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 2010:

and direct sources are required for additions. For details see

1212:

As a past participant, you're invited to join the discussion at

983:

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see

213: 2569:

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

2537:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All

2479:

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review

2391:

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review

2303:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

2225:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

1975:

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review

1902:

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review

1058:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three 2448:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All

2360:

is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All

2118:

Did you bother to read what I suggested you see for details?

1562:

redirect, not a double redirect. There is more information at

1476:

Thanks for your submission to Knowledge, and happy editing.

264:

I'll address your issues singly. To begin with, just because

1554:, does not have a double redirect. The link as I left it is 1419: 1031: 877:

And, of course, to use the V-word with a bit more restraint.

551:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

529: 400: 667:

An alien warrior traps the Team inside the Hall of Justice.

204:

Furthermore, you'll see that the same style is used on the

675:

Miss Martian becomes the target of a vengeful Black Manta.

799:

disruption of Knowledge articles, which is distinct from

208:, and if you'd like you can speak to one of their admins 2272:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

2153:

directly just to make them aware the rules have changed?

1609:

shouldn't (and normally won't) need amending as well. --

1191:

regarding a possible violation of Knowledge's policy on

426:

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the

2550: