User talk:FMSky

Clint Eastwood - Personal life

It is impressive the amount of work you have put into the main article "Personal life of Clint Eastwood." Thank you for the link, now I understand. All the best to you and your endeavors! :) Beth Timken (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Cringe pop for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cringe pop 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/Cringe pop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Python Drink (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard

Hi, @fmsky. You reverted my edits re: 'rambling monologues' and I wonder if you might reconsider. I've made a note at the Talk page of the article to point out that Izzard's monologues are not rambling as they are planned and scripted, but are simply stylised to appear rambling. Could you let me know what you think? All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sid Wilson DOB

Interesting one. This is essentially a blog post directly reporting on an Instagram post. Per WP:SOCIALMEDIA, self-published sources can't be used for information about third parties (Wilson being the third party here). The question is: do we consider the "reporting" done by Revolver here (which is merely screenshotting a social media post) to validate the information given? Rift (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

i replaced it with a better source from loudwire, should be ok now --FMSky (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the genre warring of Anonymous User #47.

Hello, FMSky. If possible, I would like to request your input on this incidents noticeboard thread regarding the genre warring edits of anonymous user 47.149.223.192. I am contacting you because you have posted on the editor's user talk page, giving the first warning against their genre meddling. Thank you. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

dawg wtf

bro wtf why do u revert every edit i make bruh on some of the stuff am just re-wording and not even adding extra fr stop reverting every fuckin edit i do Autograph84 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

cause most of the edits introduce numerous grammatical or punctuation errors. seriously, did you even proofread this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Shine_On_(Humble_Pie_song)&diff=prev&oldid=1118537144

"Shine On is a song by English rock band Humble Pie. Released in 1971 from the band's album Rock On, which was also released in that same year by A&M Records. The song was written by the band's former guitarist Peter Frampton, it would also be the last album to feature Frampton. The B-side of the single is "Mister Ring", which was written by the band's bassist Greg Ridley."

see also WP:CIR --FMSky (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

i see no problem besides u clearly have a better grammar understanding so why dont u fix it rather than reverting everythingAutograph84 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

why the reverted

why you revert all my edits did you know how hard it is

Songwriter revert on John 5 page

Hello. I noticed you removed "songwriter" from the John 5 (guitarist) page under his occupation. The dictionary definition of songwriter is someone who "composes words or music or both especially for popular songs" [1]. 5 is credited with co-writing with many artists he has worked with including Zombie, Manson, Roth etc. A songwriter does not need to write lyrics to a song to be known as a songwriter. I have put this back in and added an explanation for reverting your change. EmmaJL5 13:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Clean Up on Dana Strum page

Hello, FMSky. Thank you for cleaning up some technical issues in the article about Dana Strum. As for the information, a lot of it was removed for no good reason or any argumentation whatsoever.

1. You removed "musician, songwriter, record producer" both from the article and music artist box under his occupation. But he doesn't only play bass, he also writes songs (both as a composer and a lyricist) and produces records for other bands/artists. Let's use some of the featured articles (which are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer) for reference. Paul McCartney's page states Singer, songwriter, musician, record and film producer as his occupations although he played bass in The Beatles. John Lennon's occupations are singer, songwriter, musician. Ringo Starr is a musician, singer, songwriter, actor. Mick Jagger's page has singer, songwriter, actor, film producer under his occupation although he's primarily known to be a lead singer of the Rolling Stones. Following the example of the above-mentioned pages on Wikipedia which are considered to be the best on Wikipedia, I hope you don't mind me reverting this change you made on Dana Strum's page.
2. You removed "US-based [[hard rock]]" band Slaughter. Let me explain. There is another band called Slaughter but in Canada. To avoid the confusion, I think it's better to keep US-base in the description. As for the type of music, you replaced "hard rock" with "glam metal". The thing is the band themselves define their style as hard rock (please check their official website), so I think it will be better to keep it this way.
3. You removed "an [[American Music Awards]] winner" for Slaughter along with the references to support that. Again, let's refer to the examples of one of the best pages on Wikipedia for Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr and Mick Jagger. The introductory parts of all these articles mention the awards and achievements of the bands they used to be or are still with such as inductions into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame or reaching No. 1 on the UK or US singles charts. Therefore, I believe this fact deserves to be reverted as well.
4. You completely removed Awards & Achievement section from the article leaving "rm advertisement, these are band awards" as an explanation. I admit, most of them are awards that he got as a member of the band Slaughter, although there were also a couple of them he got as an engineer and producer of the records. Once again, let's go back to the example of the featured articles (best of the best on Wikipedia) for Paul McCartney, John Lennon, Ringo Starr and Mick Jagger. Paul McCartney#Awards and honours states the awards he received as a member of the Beatles as well as his personal awards. John Lennon#Accolades mentions the awards and achievements he got while being a member of the Beatles, not just his personal ones. The same is true for Ringo Starr#Awards and honours. Mick Jagger#Honours lists that he was inducted into the American Rock and Roll Hall of Fame alongside the other Stones. I wonder why those are not considered advertisements and why the discrimination against this page. It just makes sense that if a band gets an award, it is thanks to the collective efforts of all the band members. Let's take group sports, for instance. If a soccer, hockey or basketball team wins a championship, every single player who took part in it is considered to be a champion, not just the Team. Based on that I have to put the Awards section back.
5. And last but not least. You put a COI (Conflict of interest) plaque on the page as I as the main contributor to the page somehow appear to be in close connection with the subject. I'm sincerely flattered but will appreciate it (and I believe it will be the right thing to do) if you could list the reasons and facts you based your conclusion on. I don't share my personal opinion on the page, more than 95% of the information on the page is backed up by references, for many of the facts I managed to cite several sources to give the most neutral point of you I could. Please consider removing the message if you can't back up your reasoning or let me know how to dispute that.
6. I will add the above explanations when reverting your changes on Dana Strum page.

Thank you for your time,

Switch827 (talk) 03:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Protection duration

I see the issues which are causing you to request protection on these BLPs, and any data you might accumulate will be helpful eventually. I wish I could make these protections more lasting, but the lack of previous protection history somewhat restrains my doing so at this time. If these regimes need extension, obviously we're going to respond, but I want to do the least harm as possible by preventing unregistered editing. Thanks for your reports, your trustworthiness, and your understanding. When I see your username attached to a report, I know protection will be needed. That helps. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately it seems like a IP range block for this obsessed user won't be possible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ponyo/Archive_58#Pesky_IP_from_India_/_BLP_violations so this is probably the only way to deal with it for now --FMSky (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Which is why trusted eyes are our best defense, admins needing to sleep at least an hour or so a day... Your effort is appreciated. BusterD (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Source for drama on Blonde (2022)

I have found a source for drama João Cannabrava (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the biographical genre in Blonde. João Cannabrava (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Carrie Underwood's music genre

I was actually mirroring other singers' lead paragraphs, where their music genres are not stated, but rather kept in their respective infoboxes. Labeling singers, restricting them to one single genre, is a common thing among country music fans. You don't see other singers being labeled "R&B", "Pop" singers etc, do you? It's like an obsession country fans have. I don't find that to be fair, especially when Underwood has sung in multiple genres, including having a full Gospel studio album. She is not just a country singer. She's a singer and songwriter, plain and simple.

ChrisBS (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping

Hello FMSky, and thanks for the ping. I noticed similar behavior; seems it has not changed. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

on loren avedon

its Cruzdelaman FMSky you ask for reason so I have to. I think there is "." at the end of his profession in the top article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cruzdelaman (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion invitation: Lionel Messi

Keeping the article Barcelona centric devalues the article about him as a professional footballer; even though he spent most of his career at Barcelona, he is still a professional footballer above all. MrloniBoo (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see the talk page again, as further discussion has been posted, including by other editors. MrloniBoo (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello, FMSky. You have new messages at Talk:Lionel Messi#Barcelona-centric lead.
Message added 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MrloniBoo (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Please help with the deletion

Can you help with deleting this page? Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystallizedh (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The Hellraiser

Regarding [2], why not WP:CSD#A7?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

yeah im kind of confused right now cause there's also a deletion discussion going on by the other user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Hellraiser so im not sure if you are even allowed to tag it. the discussion also doesnt seem to be properly categorized, could you maybe help with that? --FMSky (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I was just coming back here to mention that I'm fairly certain this is a hoax. There is zero info on the band when cross-referenced with their supposed albums, save for a blogspot article. Nothing. 13 albums over 30 years and not a single press release or review? I'm deleting it as a hoax.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

nice, thanks --FMSky (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think everything's fixed now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Siobhan Fahey

Re your revert: the malformed ref needs fixing if you feel it serves as WP:RS for a WP:BLP. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty much WP:OR, with a primary source on a BLP. At least the ref is an actual ref now but maybe try and find something less dubious? I'm far too tried RN. See ya later :) Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 23:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I already linked WP:ABOUTSELF, what more is there to say? --FMSky (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_hood_films#list_of_hood_films

Angels with dirty faces, river gang, los olvidados, blackboard jungle, rebel without a cause, crime in the streets, the delinquents, teenage doll, the cool and the crazy and high school confinement 174.247.237.102 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

FMSky

I got you now you mean the picture becomes copyright violation at wikimedia commons okay let me check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy chong lee (talk • contribs) 08:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand

please explain to me why are you associating me with suckpuppets did you want me block injustice please explain to me on my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy chong lee (talk • contribs) 09:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

OTim75's edits

I noticed that you reverted an image added by this user in West Berkeley, Berkeley, California without giving a reason. I don't see any obvious reason why the file needed removing. Then I saw that you had mass reverted thousands of this user's edits. I'm not seeing any discussion on this user, there is no SPI and the files are not up for deletion or marked as problematic on Commons. So what is going on? SpinningSpark 23:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

That user mass inserted spam images in articles as part of a contest, see his talk page --FMSky (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the user's talk page and there is nothing there this year other than a speedy deletion notice. There is a discussion from a year ago about cryptic edit summaries, which led me to metawiki:Talk:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021#Cryptic edit summaries. There was some concern in that discussion about the relevance of some images but no suggestion that there should be mass rollback of all of any user's edits. If that is not what your are talking about then please provide specific links and stop making me have to search for it. In any case, there is no proscription against article improvement competitions. They happen all the time.

The specific article that drew me here seems a perfectly good addition to the article. It is not spam and you should not characterise it as such. Mass reverts on this scale either need to be outright vandalism or to have consensus you can point to. Especially when you don't provide a meaningful edit summary. You used Twinkle to do this, so that makes it an abuse of rollback on top of everything else. You should self revert your actions. SpinningSpark 11:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The pictures the user's inserted didn't have anything to do with the article and were often with nonsensical or nonexistent captions. just a bunch of examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Smolice,_Opole_Voivodeship&diff=prev&oldid=1034370541 pic of a random church in an article about a village
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Janiszowice,_Krosno_Odrza%C5%84skie_County&diff=prev&oldid=1034370132 pic of a random cemetary in an article about a village
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dutch_Figure_Skating_Championships&diff=prev&oldid=1034274464
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=W%C5%82och%C3%B3wka&diff=prev&oldid=1034361165
• https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gmina_Siewierz&diff=prev&oldid=1034352914

basically every edit is like this, it might be possible that a handful edit were improvements, but in general these edits weren't to improve articles but to win this weird contest by quantity over quality--FMSky (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to check through all of your examples, but the first one is certainly not a slam dunk. The caption on the image at Commons says "Smolice – wieś w Polsce położona w województwie opolskim, w powiecie brzeskim, w gminie Pakosławice." Google translate tells me that means " Smolice – a village in Poland located in the Opolskie Voivodeship, in the Brest County, in the Pakosławice commune." The West Berkely one is unarguably West Berkely featuring a sign saying "Welcome to West Berkely". The Polish article gives identical coordinates for Smolice as our article so appears to be the same village. It looks like it is you who are not taking enough care. Regardless of whether the user has made some mistakes, or whether or not you personally think the images are not appropriate, there is no consusnsus for mass reverting and you should self-revert. SpinningSpark 12:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

how is this

a useful photo for an article about a VILLAGE? regardless i will go through the users edits again and restore the ones who were helpful --FMSky (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

A church in a small village is likely to be central to the village. More so in acountry like Poland where religion is important to people. But the point is not whether or not the photo is appropriate and I'm not going to continue debating individual cases. The issue is your unwarranted use of rollback. Using rollback on good-faith edits is not permitted. It is certainly not permitted to rollback thousands of edits without explanation Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. Also To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page. These edits are not unarguably misguided as far as I can see in any case. WP:Twinkle says something similar One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo changes that are constructive and made in good faith. I'm seriously considering revoking your rollback right and asking for a community ban on your use of Twinkle for rollback. You clearly have a very poor understanding of policy in this area. SpinningSpark 13:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, i understand. I really didnt know it was that much of an issue, and the edits really looked like spam to me at first glance so i thought i was doing the right thing.. I will be more careful with the use of the tool in the future. I use it alot to revert vandalism so it would be really helpful if i could keep it --FMSky (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Martin Motnik

Hi, You reverted my edits on Martin Motnik why? What is wrong with my edits? Gothamk (talk)

@Gothamk: Hi, see MOS:OVERLINK --FMSky (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I am not agreed with you. There is no mention that we can't hyperlink bassist and heavy metal music. Gothamk (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

These are both words that everyone understands, but its really not that important to me so i've restored the links --FMSky (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank You FMSKY. Cheers. Gothamk (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Fans are my everything

Hi, i don't know that much about music articles, i'm more of an art reader, but this particular album had its cover drawn by Ron English, and is known to be called F.A.M.E. for being Forgiving All My Enemies and Fans Are My Everything. Billboard says it clearly. I don't know what kind of issue you have with that. Some careless user removed the other name, leaving the sentence as: "The backronym of the title has two meanings, "Forgiving All My Enemies"." lol, can you understand what's wrong with that sentence or i have to explain that stuff to you as well? lol. Dee Cosey (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dee Cosey: yeah that part wasnt the issue, but you also removed the metacritic score and a bunch of other stuff in your edit, thats why i reverted. i restored the acronym now --FMSky (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I noticed many other mistakes on the article though. In the critical reception part that same user put 2 stars on the "The New York Times" review, but the review has no rating score..... in fact it was listed simply as "mixed" before. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=F.A.M.E._(Chris_Brown_album)&diff=1039621933&oldid=1039621480.--Dee Cosey (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

to be honest, i really dont know whats going on there, i just stumbled over this article per accident. looks like a longterm edit war is going on. idk what the best version is --FMSky (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Reminder: Discussion invitation (Lionel Messi)

Hello, FMSky. You have new messages at Talk:Lionel Messi#Barcelona-centric lead.
Message added 08:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MrloniBoo (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware of this discussion but don't really have anything to add. I'm still of the opinion that the lead is fine --FMSky (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

As there is a dispute, we are advised to thorougly discuss on the article's talk page; I responded to your concerns over a week ago. MrloniBoo (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Anna Carteret

Real name is Annabelle Susan Wilkinson. This is the source, from the General Register Office of England and Wales, via freebmd.org.uk. I forgot to add this reflink in all the pre-wikibreak confusion. Thanks for letting me know. Please restore to Anna Carteret article and List of stage names, in case you removed it from there as well. And no more talkpage messages. I have gone fishing. MurrayGreshler (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD

MOS:LEAD recommends there only be 4 paragraphs in lead sections of articles. Can you explain why you reverted my edits at Dimebag Darrell and Pantera to re-add 5 paragraphs? You gave no explanation in the edit summary so I'm unsure as to the reason for the change. (Also, in both cases you restored your own previous version of the article at Dimebag Darrell and Pantera without explanation, reverting all the edits I had made. This is not how WP:ROLLBACK should be used. Please read WP:OWN and do not rollback good-faith edits in the future.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

the 4 paragraphs is only a recommendation. it doesnt make sense in this case to group the info about him being literally killed in the same paragraph as a completely unrelated info. sometimes is necessary to make exceptions. same as on the pantera page and the info about them reuniting after 20 years. on the dimebag page i also didnt understand why this info was cut https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dimebag_Darrell&diff=1125965820&oldid=1125964789, especially the part "he managed and engineered/produced Pantera from their formation in 1981, right up to the band landing a major-label deal in late 1989." i initially self-reverted my rollback on that page btw as i realized it was wrong --FMSky (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's a rule of thumb, yes. I don't see why it's "necessary" to go against that rule of thumb in this case. All the information is related; we should make an effort to make the article, including the lead, flow, not purposefully make it disjointed. And I really don't see the justification for rollbacking edits without explanation to make that 'necessary exception'.

As I said in my edit summary, it is repetition. Jerry Abbott's role is mentioned later in the article. That is an early life section. Events regarding the Pantera records are beyond the scope of the early life section, and more suited to the music career section. The line "In addition to kick-starting Darrell's career as a guitarist by giving him his first batch of lessons, he managed and engineered/produced Pantera from their formation in 1981, right up to the band landing a major-label deal in late 1989" is also a direct, unattributed quote from the source material. This should be avoided per WP:CLOP.

You initially reverted your own rollback, then manually reverted some of the edits without explanation, before using twinkle to restore your own version of the article again and thus revert all the edits. If you thought the rollback was wrong, why did you do it again? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

because i initially looked at the edits individually but then thought that none of it was an improvement over the original version. also, i really dont get how this

"Tensions within Pantera reduced its output after the release of The Great Southern Trendkill in 1996, and Reinventing the Steel (2000) was the band's final studio album before its acrimonious separation in 2003. Abbott subsequently formed Damageplan with his brother Vinnie Paul and released New Found Power, the band's only album, in 2004. Other works by Abbott included a collaboration with David Allan Coe titled Rebel Meets Rebel (2006) and numerous guest guitar solos for bands such as Anthrax."

is even remotely related to this:

"On December 8, 2004, Abbott was shot and killed by a deranged fan while on stage with Damageplan at the Alrosa Villa nightclub in Columbus, Ohio. Three others were shot and killed before the perpetrator was killed by a police officer."

and the close paraphrasing part i obviously didnt know about because you didnt write it in the edit summary --FMSky (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

going to sleep rn so i wont respond for a while --FMSky (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If "none of it was an improvement", why did you re-instate some of the edits afterwards? You're not giving a coherent reasoning for your use of rollback/twinkle. I'd also like to hear the explanation as to why you think re-adding random italics to a quote in the 'Early glam metal years' section improved the article. Why does that quote need italics when no other quote in the article is in italics, and when MOS:NOITALQUOTE advises against putting quotes in italics?

It's related in that it all covers the latter period of Abbott's career and life. If you don't think the wording of the paragraph flows well enough, you could discuss potential improvements on the talk page that still fit within the 4-paragraph limit.

Why is it obvious that you didn't know about that? You restored the content to the article, presumably you checked to make sure it was actually verified by the reference and noticed that the content was a direct quote. Or are you saying that you reverted my edit and restored the content without checking the reference? Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Most of the edits are reintegrated now, other than the line breaks basically --FMSky (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you re-instating the removal of the misplaced italics. That was one of my edits that you mass reverted, so again it was wrong to say that "none of it was an improvement".

The direct, unattributed quote remains in the article, and you haven't answered whether you checked the source prior to reverting. Did you revert my edit and restore the content without checking the reference?

Other edits that were reverted without any reasoning still haven't been re-instated. I've mentioned it earlier but you need to read WP:OWN. You do not own these articles. I am not submitting edits for your personal approval. Do not rollback good-faith edits then afterwards pick through and maybe re-instate some of the edits but not others. This is not how collaborative editing works. Hrodvarsson (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rake Yohn (TV personality).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rake Yohn (TV personality).jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Suicide Silence

Hello FMSky, I just want to let you know that you don't have to reverted it for "Status quo" as the issue was already fixed and agreed upon. This was just one time occasion where a random IP adress decided to take action without a discussion. I just only reverted his edit without any explanation why he did it. Hopefully this will be no longer an issue. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, nevermind I guess. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

More reverts of good faith users using Twinkle

You were pinged on a discussion on my talk page, but have not taken part. Perhaps you have notifications turned off. I previously spoke to you about your use of rollback. It's just not good enough to revert good faith editors without explanation. In this case it looks to me as if you should have gone to a discussion rather than continuing to revert. That's getting close to edit warring. SpinningSpark 08:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah i indeed didnt saw this discussion, i dont have your talk page on my watchlist --FMSky (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Martin Motnik

I noticed that you have made a COI template for the article about Martin Motnik. I'm not sure if you mean me by this  "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject", but if so, I'm confused about why you have done it. Are there some problems with the article? Is there something that is not written from a neutral point of view? If there are problems, should they be corrected instead of making a template that is based on some assumptions?

I do work in the music business. I have edited Finnish Wikipedia for more than four years, done almost 2000 edits about subjects I'm interested in and I have never gotten paid for my edits.  I politely ask that you could read the article again, revisit the need for a template and delete it. MHukkanen (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)