Hi TheMasterofAllHitmans! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
I am sorry for not bringing it to the talk page first, and was not trying to act like I know everything. Given that you have been uncivil to me before in edit summaries, I did not assume good faith, and did not want a wholesale removal of the content. It does make sense to have it in a note, and we should do it for other articles. I am open to changes on articles, and have gotten used to changes I didn't initially agree with, such as WP:NC-NYCS. In the spirit of Yom Kippur, I will apologize for not providing a more detailed edit summary explaining the removal and not bringing it to the talk page before reverting it for the second time. Let's work together to improve the quality of transit articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple changes over the past months or years should be made to the New York City Subway articles
Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613, we should remove all mentioning of the Q train at the articles of BMT Fourth Avenue Line express stations and the BMT Sea Beach Line stations. As of December 17, 2023, limited N trains during rush hours operate to/from 96th Street-2nd Avenue. Any thoughts? TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613, I noticed every single Queens Boulevard and 6th Avenue station articles say that the M runs on weekdays till 11 p.m., which isn't true. According to the current timetable, the M to/from Forest Hills-71st Avenue ends early around 9-ish, where service is cut back to Essex Street until 11-ish. Can we please change it to simply "weekdays only" like with the B and W? Thoughts? TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. In any case, we do not outline the exact times a service stops running for any other time periods aside from weekday-only services. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius and Kew Gardens 613, I don't know how to edit the infobox on any of the station articles featuring the M to change it to say "weekdays only". Can you please show me how? Also, another thing I want to bring up is can we please remove all mentioning of the <F>? It's just simply two trains a day anyways. It should only be briefly mentioned in the notes and lede section of the article. Otherwise, it's just simply one single F service altogether. Thoughts? TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the M, you have to edit all {{NYCS ...}} templates where the M train is mentioned, e.g. {{NYCS Queens}}. I'm actually going to do this right now.For the F, that one might be more controversial and should probably be discussed somewhere like WT:NYCPT. Although it is true that there's only only two <F> trips in each direction per day, they still are signed separately from the rest of the route, similar to the <6> and <7>. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, thank you so much. I appreciate all of this. I will learn how to properly edit the template myself. As for the F, I'll definitely bring it up there so that I can see what everyone else says. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Adventure Time"
Hey, I just wanted to reach out about AT edits. The only reason I reverted was because we don't have a source saying the show is "one of the most successful original series on Cartoon Network". Now, I wouldn't' be surprised if there is one out there, but the onus is on us, the editors, to find that source before we add it in there. Do you have any thoughts about where a source like this might be found? If we can track it down, we can assuredly include that line. But right now, I fear it veers a bit too close to original research. (And for the record, I'm a huge AT fan, and I agree that it probably is one of the network's biggest hits. That said, I don't want to slant the article unfairly and be too flattering.)--Gen. Quon[Talk]22:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
November 2024
Your recent editing history at iCarly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. You were WP:BOLD, which is great, and made the initial edit; however, another editor clearly disagrees with you. As such, you are expected to follow the bold, revert, and discuss cycle, as per WP:BRD, and hash out the issue on the talk page. Until a WP:CONSENSUS is reached one way or the other, the page must remain in the WP:STATUSQUO, the version prior to the disputed edit. It doesn't matter that the series is over, talk page discussion is still required. If you cannot follow this, you will be reported and likely blocked. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So because one user disagrees with me, that automatically means my edit on the iCarly article should be reverted? Does that even make any sense? Do you hear yourself? Ya'll should be ashamed I swear. Not to mention you only reverted my edit because someone else disagreed with me. These are your own words. Pretty dickriding thinking, don't you think? Nobody else said anything. Magical Golden WhipTheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, it is not even that serious to begin with. Besides, Geraldo Perez himself is giving narcissistic personality disorder vibes and claiming ownership of the article. You guys blocked me and let him roam free. He is the only one that reverted my edits on the iCarly page if you checked the page history over there. Another user reverted my edit as well, but only because of Perez rather than their own separate reasons. Nobody else complained or whined about my edit. All I did was added the last names of the four characters and two more commas in the lede section of the iCarly article, but Perez claimed it was unnecessary detail because…no explanation or reason. If I don’t get a response back from anyone in general, I’ll personally revert the iCarly page back to the way I edited the aforementioned lede section of the article once my block is expired. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, so go ahead and block me permanently then. All of you guys on Wikipedia are nothing but complete, nitpicking pussies anyway. Go bury yourselves six feet under. In the future, I vow to return under a different IP or page and wait till after some time has passed to get revenge for ya’ll lack of respect and severe amount of nitpicking and favoritism. TheMasterofAllHitmans (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
