User talk:4TheWynne/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Liam Neeson

Sorry but why are my edits on Neeson viewed as a "disruption"? By just reading your talk page I learn a lot...

WhatsUpWorld (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

WhatsUpWorld, and I don't care what you "learn". Discuss at the article's talk page (though you'll get the same result) rather than simply re-adding the same things that are going to be reverted over and over again – and not just by me (if you look at the page history). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
WhatsUpWorld, I will also add – seeing as you've completely misinterpreted my actions – that my removal of last year's messages was just me archiving, which I do at the start of every year, so that I only have this year's messages on my talk page. I'm not trying to cover up anything, which you seem to believe; yes, people disagree with me, but that happens all over Wikipedia – discussions are had, decisions are made and things get done. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

'''<font face="Arial">[[User:4TheWynne|<font color="darkblue">4TheWynne</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:4TheWynne|<font color="darkblue">(talk)</font>]][[Special:Contributions/4TheWynne|<font color="darkblue">(contribs)</font>]]</sup></font>''' : 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs)

to

<b style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:4TheWynne|<span style="color: darkblue;">4TheWynne</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:4TheWynne|<span style="color: darkblue;">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/4TheWynne|<span style="color: darkblue;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></b> : 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, thanks for letting me know. The updated version you provided me was a few characters too long, so I shortened it slightly without affecting the end result:
<b style="font:Arial;">[[User:4TheWynne|<span style="color:darkblue;">4TheWynne</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:4TheWynne|<span style="color:darkblue;">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contributions/4TheWynne|<span style="color:darkblue;">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></b>
Hopefully this version doesn't cause any errors (I would have no idea). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually check for length when the signature is close to the limit, but I missed it in this case and gave you a signature 9 characters over the 255 limit. Your solution works, but the markup style="font:Arial;" doesn't do anything. For users with default font Arial, it stays Arial, and for users with any other default font, that default doesn't change. Here is a signature that really does override the user's default font in 251 characters:

<b style="font-family:Arial">[[User:4TheWynne|<span style="color:darkblue">4TheWynne</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:4TheWynne|<span style="color:darkblue">(talk)</span>]][[Special:Contribs/4TheWynne|<span style="color:darkblue">(contribs)</span>]]</sup></b> : 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs)

If we needed to save 3 more characters, we could change darkblue to #00008B each time. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, thanks – I've now updated to this version. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"Unconstructive Edits"

How exactly were my edits "unconstructive"? (Which isn't even a word) If an artist doesn't play on a track it must be noted. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

JJ.Jarrett, it must be sourced before it "must be noted". 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I did source it a few months ago from a Rolling Stone article but someone has reverted that for some reason. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

JJ.Jarrett, a more appropriate source for this kind of thing would be the liner notes or something coming more directly from the band. Hammett didn't explicitly say that he didn't play on "Nothing Else Matters" in the interview that Rolling Stone sources, and that's therefore not enough to say that this is the case. I was the one who removed it the first time, and I've removed it again for this reason. Hammett played lead guitar for the whole album, and Hetfield played rhythm guitar and a solo – that is perfectly fine how it is. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You're clearly biased. Rolling Stone is a reliable source, and has been used for countless articles but of course only YOU have a problem with it when it comes to an edit you don't like. Umm yes he did, he said he had to learn the song because HE NEVER PLAYED IT BEFORE. No Hammett did NOT play lead guitar for the whole album, he does NOT play lead guitar on Nothing Else Matters at all. JJ.Jarrett (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

JJ.Jarrett, where does Hammett say that "he never played it before"? Hammett never said it, and just because Rolling Stone said it, regardless of how respected it might be, doesn't necessarily mean that it's true, particularly if that's what the magazine is using to make that claim. Besides, even if Hammett didn't record the introduction, it doesn't mean that he didn't play on the song at all. There's no bias here – you just have to present something more concrete. I've now asked you to take this discussion to the talk page. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 03:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@JJ.Jarrett: You need to stop edit warring and open a discussion on the article's talk page and seek consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Harassment

Ping me if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, will do – not that I'm expecting for it to happen, but I'll definitely know to do so if it does. I'm quite surprised, actually, that this editor turned to straight vandalism – this editor actually contributed some really good train images, and seemed well-intentioned before now. Anyway, thanks for blocking. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
That was a sock puppet to start with. Constructive edits were probably an anomaly, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, could you please check 220.244.11.85? This user's edits are more disruptive in nature than straight vandalism (other than when he/she first came along), but this message was enough to get me suspicious. While I understand that vandalism is specifically what it's for, most of the time when I place an entry at AIV, it tends to be ignored or turned down – there should really be a similar intervention page for disruptive editing (and way of reporting users to such a page, for that matter). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but the best we've got right now is WP:ANI. ANI works for really obvious stuff, but it's not so good for anything else. I blocked the IP editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more what I was referring to – rather than just having a couple of general pages that aren't always good for what a lot of people go to report other users for, there should be a few more specific pages. Anyway, that's all fine – thanks again for blocking. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up

Did some digging in your contribs, quite right! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Machine Head

I apologize for what I did with Machine Head, how can I improve myself? MetalSword (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

MetalSword, in this case, just read guidelines properly next time, and don't add "lead" and "rhythm" whenever you feel like it. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Amorymeltzer, could you please check Jack Vixion? I believe that this is another case of block evasion by the same person that I've reported multiple times, but this time he's created an account. I haven't interacted with this incarnation yet, so he's obviously sought me out, and he makes the same combination of edits: bands and MotoGP season articles. The band article edits generally are disruptive (otherwise this wouldn't be a problem), as he just changes member information to suit his opinion. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Amorymeltzer, now this user has got me suspicious. I definitely think that there's now some sockpuppetry going on here. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPI. I won't disagree that there are some troubling interactions, especially with two new accounts finding you and each other, but opening a full investigation is definitely the way to go. As noted above, AIV and ANI aren't really set up to handle this sort of thing, and it's best not to be too eager to jump on new editors. The good folks at SPI can take a good look and see if these ducks are quacking! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Response

What part of my edit did you think was incorrect on Dwayne Johnson's page?--65.130.205.88 (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, please don't message me on my talk page (let alone edit at all) while logged out, as you can be scrutinised for it. I gave you a warning for not adhering to neutral point of view with your edits to that particular article. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

re: request for comment

Hi. Sorry for the delay, but I've now replied - thanks for the note on my talkpage in the first instance. I'll try and keep it netural for the Pearl Jam members' page, but I am slightly biased! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AFL player edits

Hi 4TheWynne, just letting you know that I've seen a couple of edit wars between you and SuperJew over the past few days (I've left the exact same message on their talk page too), with the one at Jasmine Garner breaching WP:3RR and the current one at Adam Treloar getting close to it. I think it's probably best in the future when you both have interaction/reverts etc. with each other to discuss as quickly as possible to avoid further edit wars, lack of discussion etc. so that you avoid a potential block in the future. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Flickerd, I get the picture (though I'm not sure if our one-eyed Magpies supporter did). There are going to be differences of opinion – obviously you and I don't always agree on everything either – and in the heat of the moment, that kind of thing can happen, but I'll keep it in mind. There are a few of these things that I feel would be better discussed at a larger platform (e.g. image caption, "the" before MCG and SCG in the infobox, etc.), but I'm hesitant to even bring it up now. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks 4TheWynne, just trying to look out for both of you (which I agree was probably not viewed that way elsewhere) and have noticed a little bit of tension so I thought I'd recommend discussing earlier than usual so we make sure the best results happen. That's the thing, editors don't always agree, and that's generally when the best decision/result is reached because there is some sort of discussion. Also feel free to bring things up on a larger platform, but from experience, some things may not always get answers back, especially if they're minor changes (i.e. I think you might struggle to get a large discussion on the usage of "the", but doesn't hurt to try). Overtime in the project I've sort of learnt that not every battle is worth fighting (even though from the outside it might seem the opposite :P). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

AFLW Rising Star

Hey 4TheWynne,

Thanks for your edits to keep 2018 AFL Women's Rising Star up to date. Can I ask a small favour though, that you add the relevant changes to the player's pages and the award's template at the same time wherever possible? (I've edited McGuire) and am about to do Conway and the template now too but if you do get to next weeks nominations before me then it would be very handy if you could do them all at once.

Cheers in advance, DustyNail (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

DustyNail, I generally update the main article and the template, so you don't have to worry about either, but if you want me to update the player articles as well (which I should really be doing anyway, I just haven't thought to do it), then I can do that – that's fine. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks heaps. DustyNail (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for your valiant defense of the Wiki against a disruptive sock/sockmaster! It is appreciated, even though you don't seem to have gotten much thanks for it so far. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Comma on Natalie Portman

Am I missing something? Why did you and Chetsford revert the addition of an oxford comma in the Natalie Portman lead? The sentence is awkward (she's all those things regardless of her dual citizenship), but unless I'm missing something, the comma addition seems legit? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't speak for 4TheWynne, however, I reverted it since MOS:COMMA says the serial comma should be applied consistently throughout the article and the article appeared not to be using the serial comma in any other instance. That said, I only reviewed the lead and - on reading the whole article - it appears it does veer back and forth inconsistently so addition of the serial comma should be perfectly acceptable. I apologize for my oversight and will add it back. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Nevermind, it appears the IP editor already added it back. Thanks for noticing this, Amorymeltzer, and sorry again for the confusion. Chetsford (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
My reasons for reverting were pretty much the same, however if there was to be a consistent use of Oxford comma vs. consistent use of no Oxford comma, my preference would be the latter. That said, if it looks like there are more Oxford commas throughout the article than not, then I also apologise for the reversion. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Natalie Portman

Sorry about the Natalie Portman thing. I'm new to this. Danny white — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny White (talk • contribs) 5:42 pm, Today (UTC+10)

You're a Music Lover

I present you with this award as a music lover, just like me!
I just stumbled upon your page, and you seem like a really outgoing guy! I am an avid music lover as well, so I enjoy seeing other people who have the same passion as me. I look forward to reading some of your many edits! WIKIswagmaster842t@lk 02:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Tnypr (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for informing me that the user I was writing to is blocked I didn't realize that!Twiggstick (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Twiggstick, well, you were a bit late to the party. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Only exactly a month haha, guess I wasn't really fully awake or something Twiggstick (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops

I made a booboo (thought I was reverting the addition of that nonsense, not actually sure what happened) ... thanks for the fix --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

PageantUpdater, that's fine – I knew straight away that it was a mistake. Someone just beat you to reverting the vandal, and you accidentally reverted them. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 05:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Josh Bruce

Did not realise this was controversial or defamatory since it's his real name and has said this multiple times in public. Not even sure why it wasn't started with this as JOSHUA BRUCE was his drafted name and all his social media accounts are JOSHUA BRUCE. why would you have accounts and say in public numerous times a fake first name as josh is a hypocorism, which should not be inserted into the full name, see MOS:LEGALNAME. Makes no sense. Stuv3 (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Stuv3, as someone with the same first name, I can understand why you're trying to make that argument, but it's pointless – I gave you a warning for not adding a source, and that makes perfect sense. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive edit caution

Hi. You had left a caution on my talk page for unconstructive edits and possible vandalism.

I had made a properly sourced constructive edit to the personal life section of two pages (Russell crowe and martin crowe).

Since then my attention was drawn to fact that the early life section had relevant information. Thus I deleted my changes to streamline the article. To be cautioned for unconstructive edits and vandalism is thus extremely demotivating. I have had other poor experiences with wikipedia editors, didn't want this to be yet another Barath s (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Barath s, firstly, regarding the edits themselves, that kind of information usually goes in the early life section anyway, as that's where most information about one's family members can be found. I don't think "streamlining the article" was the final result of you attempting to revert your edits at both pages, as you had not removed everything (which is what I did). Your previous interactions with other editors has got nothing to do with me. Lastly, where the hell is this "possible vandalism" stuff coming from? 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's part of the caution you left on my talk page. Extremely demotivating for someone trying to do the right thing. And family often goes in personal, not only wife and kids. Relevant to recent funerals etc. You can see family in personal in other wiki pages. It's not self apparent.On balance, I'm ok with early life as is, which is why I tried to remove the stuff in personal I had added.. That's why I reached out, because I felt it would be useful/constructive and for closure. Thanks and take care ☺️ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barath s (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving categories

Hi, just letting you know that when moving categories it should be done at WP:CFDS rather than the move tab at the top of the window so all related pages are moved :). Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, in reference to this edit summary, I wouldn't really be throwing around passive-aggressive edit summaries about not updating everything when you created a premiership navbox and chose to include it on only one player article. I've said this before, remember to assume good faith and everyone edits differently, the main reason I only updated the infobox is because I know you like to edit the page and thought I'd leave it to you to stylise it the way you like. Thanks, Flickerd (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Flickerd, I wasn't being passive-aggressive at all. I only worded it that way because I know that you mostly just like to make updates to infoboxes and add templates to player articles (just like you know that I create new non-player articles/templates all the time but otherwise only edit the articles of a select few players – as you said, everyone edits differently). I wasn't having a crack at you for it, though – that was misconstrued. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)\
No worries mate, that's always the tricky thing about communicating over computer as you don't always know people's tone. No hard feelings and thanks, Flickerd (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

RE: April 2018

Can you please explain how I was involved in a "content dispute" on Zachary Levi? Also on that same note I would like to thank you for informing me that TV movies go under the TV section. User:ANDREWs13 (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

ANDREWs13, the warning says, "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor..." – the key word being "if" – and I never otherwise said that you were involved in one (however, if this was you, then you most definitely are). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:00, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Genres

Please do not edit war with IPs or other users over genres in infoboxes. There is no policy that says unregistered users or new users (who tend to be the ones reverted) need to start a talk page discussion to include sourced information in an infobox. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, the general rule at band and album articles, that I've always worked with at least, is that addition/removal/changing of genres in the infobox and/or lead section needs to be discussed (with the presentation of reliable sources) at the talk page, even if it's sourced in the article body. At Metallica (album), that single source that you pointed out (which isn't enough to justify inclusion anyway, as several sources are usually needed) says, "Several songs on Metallica seem destined to become hard-rock classics" – several songs, not the album itself. I certainly don't know where your edit warring argument is coming from, either. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 21:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
An IP made a sourced edit. You reverted and reported them to AIV. I restored it. You reverted again without actually explaining why. That's edit warring to have your view on what is required for inclusion in the infobox enforced. I don't really care about music articles, so I'm not going to get more involved than this, but I do care about not chasing off good faith users who are trying to make articles better for readers, which is what that edit by the IP did. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

4thewynne

Hello its That Guy who's Metallica Cassette article you deleted so if you Could (Not saying you have to) Could you have a article of all of the contents of the metallica Remastered Box sets or Edit the original articles to include them. BTW No Hard Feelings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.84.188.198 (talk) 7:27 am, 16 April 2018, Monday (11 days ago) (UTC+10)

Also Why are you Using "Unconstructive Edits" on a talk page Kellyiscool37 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Kellyiscool37, first of all, are you the same person who started the initial conversation, or are you just messing with the section? If you're just messing with the section, then you're unnecessarily disrupting my user talk page. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes,i was that person but was adding that it was me as before I sent that I had forgotten my password and had to use IP Account so Sorry for and mixups Kellyiscool37 (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyiscool37 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Kellyiscool37, OK – thank you for clearing that up. First of all, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). To answer your initial question, you can't have a separate article for the 2018 remastered edition – you can probably get away with having a separate section/tracklist, but only if the contents vary in some way. If this is the case, then I'll add it in, but if not, it would be best not to include or change anything (and this applies to all of the band's album articles). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 23:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Kellyiscool37 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC) Also I Had Made a Article as a Draft for the "Boxsets"/Reissues series and if you want to edit it the link is right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Metallica_Box_Set_Series

Kellyiscool37, unfortunately I don't think you're going to get anywhere with that one, so I will politely decline. And please sign at the end of your comments, not the start... 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 00:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright Kellyiscool37 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to join Women in Red

Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota.
We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap.
You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.55% of English Wikipedia's biographies).

Our priorities for April:

April+Further with Art+Feminism Archaeology Military history (contest) Geofocus: Indian subcontinent

Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list or Women in Red/international list. To unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list. Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Metallica timeline edit

I would like to apologize for my disruptive edits. As dumb as it sounds, I was unaware that you had intentionally reverted my edit and I wasn't trying to start a content dispute. The edits I did after I reverted your edit were just a continuation of what I was already doing. In the future, I will refrain from editing the timeline on the article without discussion. Howpper (talk) 2:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

QR Stuff

If you still think I'm a sock puppet, feel free to send me an email - it's my username @ gmail. You'll also notice a jamesmp on Flickr, that's me, where else am I ... jamesmp on Facebook ... there's quite a few instances there if you're unsure. I'm also the admin of the Railways of Queensland Group on Facebook. Cheers, Mick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmp1184 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Metallica

I don't want to waste my time to discuss something useless. You should realize that wikipedia is for reliability. USE YOUR EYES, the source from BBC saying 125m ALBUMS but you keep putting 125m RECORDS in their profile page, making it look so silly and unreliable. Politsi (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Politsi, that is not how Wikipedia works – you know that consensus is reached through discussion, not "using [one's] eyes". You're the one who's making yourself look silly – if "I don't want to waste my time to discuss something useless" is the attitude that you want to take, this won't last long. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
No need to teach me about how wikipedia works. Well okay then, good luck with thatPolitsi (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

700 Series

Dude, I don't know what's going on with sock puppets harassing you but I don't appreciate being placed in the same basket. That's why you've seen a number of talk threads regarding your accusations.

I don't know what type of camera you use (mobile phone, SLR or otherwise) but if you've got any favourite photos, I'd be happy to consider them to go with my article. I'm trying to show case work from a number of different people, not just my usual pool of mates.

So, if you want to contribute positively, you know where to contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmp1184 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know enough to make a table for the article but if you want the dates each unit has entered revenue service, I can give them to you. Cheers, Mick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.90.52 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Metallica and Megadeth

Greetings, I did self-revert the changes I made per your Request. However, I would like to know how my Hyperlinking Megadeth is considered, “Disruptive”? I’ve been an Editor since 2009 and you are the first person to call an Edit of mine Disruptive. Again, I am not insisting on my attempt to hyperlink Megadeth. I am asking what exactly about an attempt to Link something is Disruptive??? Norwichmcv99 (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Norwichmcv99, before I get into your edit, don't bother making the "I've been editing here since ____" argument – I could just as easily say that I've made 12,620 edits to this point in time (including this one) vs. your 240. The amount of time that you've been on here means nothing – if anything, if you're going to go and tell me how long you've been on Wikipedia (however infrequently), then you should know all about MOS:OVERLINK, which is the reason why I reverted you (I also linked to it in your second warning). Basically, if it's already linked directly above (only two sentences back), don't go and link it again, as the article already contains a lot of links to Megadeth and doesn't need any more. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and I appreciate the feedback. You are, however, very hostile and combative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwichmcv99 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Done

I think I've got it sorted now, sorry for the hassel. Gnangarra 13:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Gnangarra, awesome – thanks so much for your help. Is there any chance that we can discuss edit and/or move protection for these pages? If not, that's fine – I'm just somewhat confident that this will happen again now that moving has been added to the sockpuppet's list of ideas of how to get at me. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 13:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Gnangarra, feel free to add Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LukaRuckels to your watchlist as well (though I can understand if it won't make much of a difference) – I normally add to this page as soon as I know or as soon as something happens, but you managed to block the sockpuppet before I even got around to doing that (and the interest in Australian politics proves that it was definitely the same person). Anyway, thanks again – I'll let you know if this kind of thing happens again. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 01:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
ping me anytime, I'm not normally around Australian politics especially current events, it also left a mess over on commons that sorted out as well. :( Gnangarra 02:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Gnangarra, all good. I'm not around Australian politics either – it's the interest in Queensland Rail and trains-related stuff that we have in common – but I look for the other things as well to confirm that it's the same person (which, unfortunately for them, makes it easier for us). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melbourne best and fairest (AFL Women's) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adelaide Club Champion (AFL Women's) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Mandy Moore reversion

I thought I should fully explain my edit -- and why it was incorrect to revert it.

You said, "Doesn't really make a difference, as he doesn't have his own article." That doesn't really make sense to me. Of course it makes a difference, and of course he doesn't have his own article. That's the point of the piping. It goes to the page that tells who he is (thus, why I said it's "helpful"). Sure, the reader can go to her Personal life section to find the same link, but the infobox summarizes the main article. Also, WP:ROWN says: "Do not revert an edit because it is unnecessary – because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." To me, it's a definite improvement, and not a detriment. And WP:REVEXP says that when reverting, we should "provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion."

And if there's something you don't understand about my latest edit, please just ask me -- either on my user page or here in this thread. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Seven year itch scratched

Must be a happy Don fan today mate! Greets from a fellow Bomber aficionado. Peter Greenwell (talk) 01:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Patrick Cripps

Hey mate. First time adding content on Wikipedia. What did I do wrong? Was it not adding a source? The sources were already there from other additions. Do I have to add them again? Cheers BigLuds (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

BigLuds, sure thing. Your linking was incorrect anyway, but that wasn't what I was focusing on – records and award runner-ups/placings aren't really considered accolades and don't go in any achievements sections; they can be mentioned in the body of the article, which is perfectly fine, but that's all. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 07:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Goal kicking records go up why not an all time AFL record? Also rising star Nominees (22/23) per year go up, why not runner up in a prestigious award like the MVP of the whole season? BigLuds (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Also just a side note it's not accolades or achievements, it's career highlights BigLuds (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sunshine Coast

Hey User:4TheWynne, I was going yo suggest a Sunshine Coast meetup, but according to Category:Wikipedians in Sunshine Coast, Queensland, we're the only two active users on the coast. Would you be interested in a meetup? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Metallica

Sorry about that last edit. We were making them at the same time. I see your point about it still being discussed. I added my two cents on the And Justice for All talk page. Sonderweg (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

About the edit on pearl jam's page

Well thanks for consulting it directly to me rather than just reverting the edit but i dont think that the edit i made is violating any terms and condition. The content i added to the page of pearl jam is well deserved and confirmed by many legendary persons, one of which i cited onto the cite proving the authenticity of my edit. I too want to help wikipedia just like you to help it transform into an unbiased platform for readers. 

          I hope you understand it and support my opinion because there is nothing wrong with my edit. I am going to re-do my edit once again and hope to get you support.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandra Shekher Mishra (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation for EMU train article

Hello, Here is the link, i got it off youtube comments so i dont know if it is that reliable. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skHjmxG4Jk AND GO TO COMMENTS!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RowanLifts (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RowanLifts, no, going off YouTube comments isn't reliable, and I don't know why you would think that it would be – had one of them included a source of some kind, whether it be a news article, a Facebook post, or something to that effect, then you could have used that instead. If you can find something like that, instead of just linking to a YouTube video and saying "NOTE: GO TO VIDEO COMMENTS", then we can talk. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 11:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Dustin Martin article

Hi, I noticed your message referring to my 'disruptive' edit to the Dustin Martin article. I was changing the player position info in his infobox to be structured in the same way as most other AFL player pages.

It seems that usually when a player has two positions it will be like this on their page: Midfielder/forward

On Dustin Martin page's it is/was like this: Midfielder / forward

Please clear up what should be done here, and I didn't really have a disruptive agenda - instead it was an attempt to follow what is seemingly convention. Doctorkaufman (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Doctorkaufman, I don't see this particular format on "most" AFL player pages, but the way that it's been formatted at Martin's article is more helpful, as it links to the specific positions at the relevant article and is spaced out for readability. The other format just links to the positions article, which doesn't achieve much. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 12:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 4TheWynne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, 4TheWynne. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections 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.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Useless edits

Hi,

Just to get to the point really quick -- I do believe you are wrong. My edits ensure a clear format is followed. In the case of 'Better Than You', capitalizing 'Than' ensures the Wikipedia-wide format of capitalizing all words of a song name is titled (with the exception of prepositions etc., which this isn't). So you are wrong. The song itself has a Wiki page, and it is dubbed as 'Better Than You'. This is empirical evidence for why you are wrong. My edit should stand. I'm willing to let the 'James Hetfield' edit slide. You probably won't listen to me, but let me just reiterate -- my edit ensures the Wikipedia-wide style is followed. It should be 'Better Than You'. Period. No wonder people don't donate to Wikipedia.

Have yourself a wonderful day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.5.11 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, get off your high horse for a minute – why am I copping it when someone else reverted your edit at Reload (Metallica album) and not me? I understand where you're coming from with the capitalisation, but per this policy, prepositions shorter than five characters within titles aren't capitalised. A similar case is the Hardwired... to Self-Destruct album article – it's listed elsewhere officially as "Hardwired...To Self-Destruct", but Wikipedia has very specific ways of formatting things, so it's better just to stick to it rather than argue with it too much. Secondly, don't give me "I'll let _______ slide" – that reversion of the edit at Master of Puppets, which was by me, was warranted, as the "Wikipedia-wide style" (which isn't applicable to the first edit that you mentioned) is that the full name of the musician only appears once in the section before it is shortened to just the surname for every other time that it appears in the section. Hetfield's name appeared at the top of the section ("All lyrics written by James Hetfield"), and therefore is shortened to "Hetfield" every other time, including the first song on the tracklist. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 15:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

"Disruptive Edits"

Excuse me, in what way was my edit on Furious 7 disruptive in any way? Seems to me you've handed out an arbitrary warning for an edit that was clearly not disruptive. According to the Fast and Furious 6 page, Brian and Mia are listed as husband and wife, so there's no consistency in that page or Furious 7's. I also don't see any link provided on Furious 7's page that attests Brian and Mia are not married, which makes your edit simply speculation on your end.

Looks to me like you've just gone ahead with your preferred POV in here, and I wouldn't have minded had you not left that "Unconstructive" note on my talk page when there was no edit warring or malicious intent involved.

Saimcheeda (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Saimcheeda, thank you for bringing this inconsistency to my attention – because it was never established that the characters Brian and Mia got married, I have reverted to the previous wording. The fact that you thought my edit was speculation, and that there needs to be a link to something stating that the characters aren't married, is exactly why I thought your edit was unconstructive; however, now that it is consistent at both articles (which you said was the reason for your edit in the first place), there's nothing more to discuss. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 22:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)