Welcome to Wikipedia, Kubrickrules! I am Timsdad and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gorn may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Federation of Planets|Federation]] at Cestus III in 2267 when a misunderstanding nearly led to war (original series episode "[[Arena (Star Trek: The Original Series)|Arena]]", the Gorn played by
You removed the closing parenthesis (The pair is bolded) from the following sentence: (original series episode "Arena", the Gorn played by Bobby Clark). This is what BracketBot was referring to. Please remember to leave an wp:edit summary Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
January 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Clara Bow. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute 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 Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Excuse me, but in what way is my edit "disruptive"?
Your recent editing history at Clara Bow shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts 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 warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MarnetteD|Talk05:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
It certainly looks to me like you were edit-warring and with many editors. I suggest you comment here or at WP:AN3 and promise not to edit Clara Bow for at least one week. Otherwise, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained, at Help desk and probably elsewhere. You ignored the explanation(s), and that's when people lose patience. ―Mandruss☎06:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you're ignoring the fact that the Metric system is the world standard of measurement. Do you not understand that no one uses the Imperial system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs)
The explanation I referred to was about correct editing process and had nothing to do with the metric system. You are confusing two completely separate issues. You follow correct process first, then we talk about content. ―Mandruss☎06:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously has everything to do with the Metric system, as you keep reverting the edit back to the Imperial system, a system which nobody on the planet uses, except, apparently, you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs)
I reverted once because you refuse to follow process, not because I care a whit about metric vs imperial. That is something for you to resolve with other editors on the Clara Bow talk page. If you cannot convince them within a reasonable amount of time, you need to gracefully give up and move on. That is what Wikipedia editing is about. Sometimes we lose. Deal with it. ―Mandruss☎06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What does it feel like to be the one Latin-speaking person out of a room full of two hundred people who don't speak Latin? I'm curious. You're basically insisting that the other 199 people, who only speak English, have to learn to speak Latin just to be able to converse with you, instead of you learning to speak English.
I.E., Nobody uses the Imperial system anymore. Deal with it. Get with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs)
You're not getting the point. We're not discussing the validity of imperial vs. metric. This issue is that you are repeatedly going against Wikipedia policy and guidelines, by both going against the Manual of Style and edit warring. If you disagree with the Manual of Style, you're free to discuss it. This does not mean you can continuously change the article to go against the established consensus and expect it to stick. ~SuperHamsterTalkContribs07:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then using your standards and definitions, you too, are "going against Wikipedia policy and guidelines," since you are continuing a ridiculous anti-Metric war with me. I repeat: No one uses the Imperial system except you. You need to accept that and move on. Get with the program.
You are also participating in an edit war, and you need to admit that the Manual of Style is wrong. You need to admit that and move on. Catch up with the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs)
As for "established consensus," the consensus is that the Metric system is the world standard of measurement. The population of the earth is over 7 billion people. Only the US uses the Imperial system, and even then, not all of it, as scientists, the military, and the medical field use Metric (even drug dealers use the Metric system), so basically, 6.7 billion people out of 7 billion people on this planet use the Metric system. That's a consensus if I ever saw one. Get with the program.
Yes, no one uses the Imperial system except the 320 million people of the United States. As I said when this first came up on my talk page, I'm an American, and I think we should be using the metric system, but the plain fact of the matter is that we don't, and you can't change that fact by ignoring it and starting a Wikicrusade. That's only going to get you blocked from editing - so give it up, please, it's not going to work and it's not worth it. Read WP:UNIT and WP:POINT. BMK (talk) 08:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But no one cares whether Americans use the Metric system or not. That's your problem, not ours. Everyone else uses the Metric system, and always will. It's the world standard. We are under no obligation to continue to hold your petulant, resisting hand. The Imperial system is dead and gone. Get with the program.
This is the internet. It's world-wide. Learn to speak the language or get off. Get with the program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs)
Sorry, you appear to either be incapable of understanding the not-very-subtle difference between the desirability of the US adopting everyday use of the metric system and the rules here about how we handle metric vs. Imperial in our editing, or deliberately acting that way, although to what purpose I don't know, since it appears from the outside simply to be trolling, or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It's odd that someone who's been around since 2007, albeit without a ton of edits, would choose to go off half-cocked like this, but you're responsible for your own actions, and you can look forward to being blocked from editing soon if things don't change. It's in your hands. BMK (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you are incapable of understanding that the Wikipedia handling rules regarding Metric vs. Imperial need to change, since Wikipedia is a thing located on the internet, which exists world-wide, not just in the US. If the US actually got with the Metric program, this editing issue wouldn't be an issue at all. Do you understand that? And again, you are equally as guilty of an "editing war" as you claim I am. You are acting childish. There wouldn't even be an issue if you had simply gotten your arrogant Imperial head out of your arse at the start of this conversation. I will be contacting actual Wikipedia editors about this. They WILL get with the program, I assure you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs)
OMG! Hallelujah!! I've seen the light!!! You're absolutely right about everything!!!! I have been acting childish(ly), and you are so very right -- even though I've been here since 2005 and have over 150,000 edits, I am not an actual Wikipedia editor, only a pale imitation of one. My primary purpose is to impede real progress in every way possible, and to keep the United States pure and unsullied by the barbarians I believed lived everywhere else in the scary wide world. Oh, what a fool I've been!!!!! I know now that with your will of iron and keen determination to right great wrongs you will be victorious in your glorious crusade to drag us unworthy and unwashed Americans into the clear white light of revelation enjoyed by the rest of the world. ONWARD THE PROGRAM!!!!!! ALL HAIL THE GREAT METRIC CRUSADE!!!!!!! Yr. obt. hble. srvt. BMK (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, don't be a spoilsport. There's only two real possibilities here: trolling or pointy behavior. Whichever it is, it's well-deserving of some sarcasm for wasting our time and energy. BMK (talk) 09:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rcsprinter123: Civility does not preclude some well-provoked and well-deserved (and well-crafted, I must say) sarcasm. I looked at WP:CIVIL and it doesn't even contain the string "sarcas". Remember, here at Wikipedia even "fuck off and die" is forgiven under the right circumstances. ―Mandruss☎09:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been pointed to WP:UNIT several times. Here is the relevant quote:
In non-scientific articles relating to the United States, the primary units are US customary, e.g. 97pounds (44kg).
Clara Bow was an American actress and the article mentions a temperature in New York so the above clearly applies. Fahrenheit is a US customary unit and used by hundreds of millions of Americans. Wikipedia isn't the place to lecture Americans about what you think they should do. And regardless of Wikipedia guidelines about units, you were still edit warring. Your five edits were reverted by four different editors so none of them broke Wikipedia:Edit warring. Please learn to sign your posts. See Wikipedia:Signatures. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
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.
Hello, Kubrickrules. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections 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.
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.
Hello, Kubrickrules. 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.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please note that even if you somehow have personal insider knowledge about notable people's deaths, Wikipedia still needs to cite an actual reference to support their death before we can update our article to say that they're dead. If you can actually provide a source, then that's different, but until there's a source to support his death the article still has to reflect him as living in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it's okay to replace what I wrote with "is a former a Canadian rock singer"? Can you explain how "is a former a Canadian rock singer" is acceptable, and my edit is not? I assure you, he's dead. Kubrickrules (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't care what you assure us; we care about what proper references do or don't tell us. For our purposes, he's not dead until you footnote his death to a reliable source reference confirming it — and this is not just me being stupid, we've actually had at least three notable people who are still alive get falsely killed off in their Wikipedia articles just this month alone, and that's just examples that I caught personally (I can't speak for how many more examples other people came across, but it's a thing that happens constantly on here). So if he's dead, then cite a reference for his death. The only problem with "is a former a Canadian rock singer" is an easily corrected typo, not an unreferenced claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but then why do you admit in your edit that he's no longer alive with the use of "former Canadian rock singer," not to mention that "former Canadian rock singer" is an odd and clunky description. Why not "is/was a Canadian musician"? Kubrickrules (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Former" doesn't only encompass "dead". It also encompasses "retired but still alive", especially when the sentence says that he is a former something, rather than was a former something. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another thing: I don't see any citation hyperlinks on anyone else's page. Why does Johnnie Lovesin specifically need one? And where does it go? And why hasn't anyone ever questioned any of my edits for the recently deceased before? I've never been wrong, and there's no way I would add such an update if I wasn't 100% sure.
I don't know what pages you're looking at, so I can't speak to what you are or aren't seeing in their articles. But the recent death of a person who already had a Wikipedia article while they were alive always needs a proper source for it — if there are people whose deaths aren't properly sourced at all, it's because somebody who wasn't following the rules somehow managed to add it without getting caught or reverted by a more responsible editor, and not because adding death claims without sources for them is ever acceptable. But what's much more likely is that their deaths are properly sourced, and you're just not noticing where. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook posts aren't reliable sources — what we need is an obituary appearing in a media outlet. The ideal source for a person's death would be a journalist writing about his death as a news story, but not everybody is actually high profile enough for their death to get that kind of attention — but we at least need a published death notice from the local newspaper classifieds or legacy.com or something of that ilk, not just a user-generated social networking post. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for lecturing me about not adding a source without actually telling me where or how to do it. That was very helpful indeed.
Okay, Bearcat. You go, girl. Have fun constantly reverting a death date that will have to be re-added almost immediately anyway. I think I'm done here. Ta ta. Kubrickrules (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to tell you where or how to do something that's patently obvious: the answer to "how" is exactly the same way as you add any other source to an article, and the answer to "where" is footnoting the death date. If you actually need to have those things explained to you, then your basic competence as a Wikipedian is up for way more debate than mine. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
If I actually know, in real life, that a person with a Wikipedia page passed away, I will change that person's page, regardless of whether it hit the newspapers or not. Sometimes it takes weeks for the death to appear in a news source. What I do is not "disruption." Kubrickrules (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello. In a recent edit to the page Wishbone Ash, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Acroterion(talk)17:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This policy applies to spellings ("honor" versus "honour") and grammatical issues such as the British tendency to refer to groups or organizations that Americans would normally consider singular as plural ("Exxon is" versus "BP are"), as appropriate to the subject or the history of the article. Acroterion(talk)17:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Star Trek
Your update was reverted because despite your claim of a Canadian premiere that, in your words, are “correct in every way,” you have provided no source for that information. If you want to include that information, a source must be provided. Rcarter555 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually mention the Canadian premier except to you in this exchange. This is commonly known information, so changing the part of the sentence from " ... debuted on September 8, 1966 ..." to " ... debuted in the US on September 8, 1966 ... " is 100% accurate, and actually preferred, because the way it is currently written is inaccurate. It debuted in the US on NBC on September 8th, not in general. In general, it debuted on CTV in Canada on September 6th, 1966. That was the world debut. If you do not agree to accept the change, I will take it to arbitration. My wording is 100% accurate, and the current wording is not. Kubrickrules (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) personon Bobby Rydell, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Schazjmd(talk)21:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@Alex_21:Question: How are you not also engaged in an edit war? Another question: Who are you to revert my edit, and for what reason do you keep reverting it? State your reason immediately. When I get time, I'll be taking this to arbitration. I have made the exact same edit to numerous Wiki articles over the years, and 100% of them stayed, because they are accurate, correct, and an improvement. Do you plan to remove the names of US states from listed geographical locales in other Wikipedia articles? ~~~ Kubrickrules (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have been reverted by multiple editors (against one of whom you have violated WP:NPA) and have cited no guideline or policy support. I'm not having this discussion in three places, stick to one. -- Alex_21TALK23:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really an answer to my question. Why do you have a problem with this geographical format, especially when it is identical to the US one? Are you removing US states in other articles? You are a child from Australia who is apparently unfamiliar with North American written geographical formats, and you are edit warring with me without giving any logical reason. Nothing I did is factually incorrect in any way. As such, I'm taking this to arbitration. ~~~ Kubrickrules (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, hold this discussion in one place. You have now violated WP:NPA twice; take it elsewhere if you like, but note WP:BOOMERANG, your behaviour will be the first thing brought into question, and the fact that you can cite no support will be second. -- Alex_21TALK23:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is in one place. It's all right in front of you. I placed one note in the talk section of the actual article. Everything else is right here. I am Canadian, living in Canada since 1972. I know the Canadian written geographical formats. They are the same as the American ones. You still have not explained to me why you personally have a problem with this edit, and why it needs to be taken down. If anyone hasn't cited anything, it is you with your lack of citation of why my edit is "wrong" and needs to be taken down in your eyes. You haven't explained why you are the only person in my entire history here who has reverted that exact same edit I've made many times in the past on multiple pages. Stop telling me to hold the discussion in one place on my own page where clearly, the discussion is taking place in one place, and stop reverting my edits for no reason. Also, you need to explain why the word "Ontario" has to be taken out of the locale description. Your own behaviour has now reached "appalling" status. ~~~ Kubrickrules (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then if you're in the all-knowing place when it comes to this, cite the relevant Wikipedia guideline. I'm waiting. -- Alex_21TALK23:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a literal quote from the "Filming" section of that exact same article: "Filming for the series also takes place on location around Ontario, Canada, including at the Aga Khan Museum in Toronto to portray the Vulcan Science Academy, the Hilton Falls and Kelso Conservation Areas, the Scarborough Bluffs, the Stelco steel plant in Hamilton, and the disused Kingston Penitentiary. The series spent more than CA$257 million (US$202 million) in Ontario, and created more than 4,000 jobs for local crew, in just its first two seasons." Now explain to me why the word "Ontario" needs to be removed from "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" in my edits, but gets to stay in that section. And explain why an Australian is now in charge of written North American geographical formats. ~~~ Kubrickrules (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, your only argument is "I'm right". You can still provide no guideline to support your warring edits, and are now exhibiting WP:OWN behaviour based on an editor's location. -- Alex_21TALK00:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is that you have zero argument for reverting my edit. You have yet to demonstrate how my edit is wrong or inaccurate in any way. You are the one claiming it's "wrong" or "unnecessary", therefore, the onus is on you to prove it. You can't, though. "Toronto, Ontario, Canada" is the correct and proper written geographical format, exactly the same as the US one (City/State/Country - City/Province/Country) and is literally only a single word difference from the incorrect one that was there before, which means its existence in the article can't possibly affect it negatively at all. The fact that you are putting up this much of a battle over a correct written format, especially a format you clearly aren't even familiar with in the first place, is extraordinarily puzzling, to say the least. For consistency's sake, will you be removing the names of US states from articles which have them listed in a City/State or City/State/Country format? If not, why not? ~~~ Kubrickrules (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you continue to have this discussion in two places. Unnecessary. You have yet to demonstrate any support for your edits. -- Alex_21TALK01:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have yet to demonstrate any support for why my minor, 100% accurate edits need to be reverted. The onus is on you. I'm putting a hold on this until tomorrow. Don't bother answering.~~~ Kubrickrules (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, please, continue. You've now violated multiple policies (OWN x3, EW x1, NPA x2), displayed no support (from either policies or other editors), and your argument is based solely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I thought you were taking this minor content dispute all the way to arbitration? Can you link me once you do? -- Alex_21TALK01:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
