User talk:Versus001

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Versus001! Thank you for your contibutions. I am Hitcher vs. Candyman.

You need to change some info about sandy hook, the bushmaster rifle was not used it was left in the vehicle as well as the shotgun, this has been the cause as to why assault weapons are now almost completely banned in Connecticut, please look it up and fix. Thank you

P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.185.232 (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles that you might find helpful:

Please remember that when you post your messages on talk pages to sign your name by typing four tildes; this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian!Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Versus001, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Versus001! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuBose edit

Re this: I don't know why you changed |website= to |work=, when website is not incorrect usage and the change has no effect on what the reader sees. But that's minor. Thank you for adding accessdates. But why did you remove |location= for local TV stations, something that actually benefits the reader? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Why are you removing spaces from within cite templates? Some editors differ, but many feel those spaces are a good thing. Just because you're among those who disagree doesn't mean it's a good idea to remove them from citations created by other editors. Unless something like that violates policy or guideline, or otherwise causes a problem, it really should be left alone.

3. Why don't you respond when someone tries to communicate with you on your talk page? Do you speak English? ―Mandruss ☎ 01:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shooting of Samuel DuBose. 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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. If you click on the word "bodycam", it takes you to the same article. Therefore, the piping is not necessary. Do not re-revert a disputed edit, per WP:BRD. If you wish to discuss the issue with other editors, open a discussion on the article talk page using the "New section" link at the top of that page. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ant-Man

Stop edit-warring. Go to the talk page and discuss it, or you're done here. OK? Rusted AutoParts 21:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A bit harsh Rusted AutoParts. Please observe WP:BITE, or use a templated warning.

Versus001, there is a Wikipedia policy against editors repeatedly reverting other editors. Violating the policy can result in losing your editing privileges. Please read WP:EW and feel free to ask questions if something doesn't make sense to you.- Mr X 22:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Please stay close to the sources and avoid editorializing. Note that the article is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions, and disruptive edits can result in your account being blocked. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many other sources besides Reuters are confirming 15 + people dead in the Umpqua school shooting ^[1] Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2015 (EST

August 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please refrain from unexplained content removal 495656778774 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start date in mass shooting articles

I'm not sure why you have gone on a spree of edits like this in mass shooting articles. The date is enough and this isn't really necessary. The reader can do the math for themselves.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate arguments for both sides. On the one hand, we should avoid unnecessary clutter in infoboxes. On the other, do we not serve the reader by saving them the mental effort of doing the math for themselves? Why would the community create that template, and allow it to exist for years, if its use was never justified? And if these aren't good uses of {{Start date and age}}, what is? I noticed these changes earlier and decided not to revert or take any other action. There's no need (or practical possibility) for articles to be consistent on this, and I think the question can be handled via normal process at the individual articles; i.e., discussion and consensus. However, Versus001, please remember not to re-revert after your edit is disputed; rather, open a thread on the article talk page or let it go. Thanks to all,―Mandruss ☎ 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, he substituted the template to articles about recent events (2 or 3 years ago). In my opinion, it's inessential to calculate the age if the event is not more than 4/5 years old. It's mostly used for articles about space exploration missions, such as Voyager 1, Pioneer 10. -- Chamith (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you call the template's usage for the September 11 attacks article? Versus001 (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chamith, that's one editor's opinion, there is no community consensus on that as far as I know. So your opinion and that of Versus001 are exactly equal in the matter. You can dispute individual edits as per normal routine, but I don't think you say that the edits are out of line. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not and I completely agree with you. I stopped removing his template additions after realizing that the discussion is still on going. I won't continue to revert or re-revert (if someone reverts back my edits) until a proper consensus is established. -- Chamith (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a community consensus as to how old an event should be before this template is used, that needs to be done in a public talk space such as Village Pump. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start dates are rarely if ever necessary for one off events. All they do is to provide mathematical eye candy which is in some cases the work of Captain Obvious.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, one editor's opinion without community consensus. We can't state our opinions as absolute, self-evident truths, which is what you just did. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: or we could just request for comments? -- Chamith (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would need to be an RfC at Village Pump, otherwise your participation is limited to those directly involved and those who happen to watch the listings of RfCs. But that's just my opinion without community consensus! :) ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purely at random, I looked at Attack on Pearl Harbor. All this does is to give the date in the infobox. I'm not sure why the fad for adding a start date to mass shootings has arisen. Life can be very puzzling sometimes.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially life at Wikipedia! Couldn't agree more with that general observation. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new discussion at Village pump -- Chamith (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit history suggests that you are now doing this simply to make a WP:POINT. Please stop while the discussion is running at the Village Pump.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make a point; I thought I was still allowed to go on ahead while the discussion was on. Versus001 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a good idea to make any edit repeatedly without getting a consensus. Please stop while the discussion is running.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's better to wait until the issue is resolved. There is no deadline to meet on these changes. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit: please be aware of WP:POINT. It was Versus001 who launched into a massive spree of these edits without an attempt to get a consensus. Please no do not make or revert any more of these edits while the discussion is running at the Village Pump.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Curtis Culwell Center attack page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist

Please desist from removing the passenger list. You first removed it by a method that some may consider sneaky vandalism. Then you persist. If you don't like it, start an article talk page section or add to mine. That is the proper way. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 2015 Thalys attack. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have unblocked Sandra per her promise not to edit the article for the next 24 hours. If you make the same promise, I will unblock you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1975 LaGuardia Airport bombing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page World Trade Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting edits on “Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward”

I just noticed your recent edit to Murders of Alison Parker and Adam Ward where your summary states, “Separating into paragraphs.” but at the actual edit shows you changing content of an edit and not doing any paragraph separation. Specifically altering an edit that I made that stated “by the professional pseudonym” to “as” thus removing the details that Bryce Williams is not a legal name but rather a “stage name” someone used. This is non-constructive and unhelpful. If the summary was a mistake, okay… Fair enough. But to engage in an edit like that deliberately with a fake summary designed to mislead edits? That’s not good. Please be more respectful to other editors—and their edits—in your actions. --SpyMagician (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Awards, medals etc. French train

I think your revert was wrong. One is awarded a medal (or other honour) usually on the date the announcement is made, receiving it is the formal process, just as being awarded a degree is not the same as being handed a certificate. To that extent the two French HAVE been awarded the medal, but have not received it yet. I was careful to phrase such that this was clear. The Gdn uses similar terminology. Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC),[reply]

Errrrrr M, N, O, (don't tell me, what comes next), I think that mistake was mine! Pincrete (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spelled/spelt, is I think optional, spelt is more common in UK and among oldies.Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

I am going to list you as an interested party because you edited the 2015 Thalys train attack article. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

There is currently a disscussion at the resolution noticeboard that you have been involved in, thank you. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 06:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murder of Megan Kanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton, New Jersey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

citations

May I remind you to please not use bare URLs as references? It's very troublesome to fill them in for you. Versus001 (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I thought they were not illegal. The other way takes about 15 minutes to do. Why so difficult? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk • contribs)

I lied. It doesn't take 15 minutes. It takes longer. I am still reading how to do it. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Versus001, almost every edit we make is improving on someone else's work. If you fill in a ref, you're not doing it for another editor, you're doing it for Wikipedia and its readers. We all have something to contribute, and we don't all need to do everything we do perfectly. I happen to fill in tons of refs, it's something I do well, and I'm happy other editors leave me that way to contribute. It's all in how you look at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do not do

You are wrong. Please don't insert wrong information. The orchestra in Kinshasa is no longer the only one in Africa. There are 2 more nearby. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Charlotte (anime)

Hello, and first let me thank you for your contributions to this article. However, I would like to point out something about this revert and your rationale given for reverting. Essentially, plot sections are not only meant to give a general overview of a series, but are meant to be a comprehensive summary of the overall plot, or at least that's how it should be once an article on a fictional topic such as this achieves GA status. Obviously, this is a given for articles on books and movies, but is also applicable to TV series. For instance, a comprehensive summary of the important plot details is given on Angel Beats! for this reason. However, I would like to point out that I believe the summary the IP added was overly detailed, and it should be trimmed, rewritten and/or replaced with another summary in time. At any rate, a comprehensive plot summary will eventually be added to that article before I take it to WP:GAN, which I'll be doing after I work on improving the article over the next few months.--十八 02:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you not to unilaterally remove attempts to write a comprehensive plot summary on this article, as you did once again with this edit. If you have a problem with the summary, try to improve upon it, but removing most of it does not help improve the article. I would hope that I do not have to point out that this is a long-standing and established practice all across Wikipedia, with further examples just in the realm of anime being such articles as Neon Genesis Evangelion, Psycho-Pass, Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Devil Survivor 2: The Animation to just name a few that are already at least GAs, to say nothing of articles about manga like School Rumble and Tokyo Mew Mew (both featured articles), Dragon Ball, Cross Game, and many more.--十八 00:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But it is completely redundant. Everything's already in the episode list section. We don't need a full plot in that section. Versus001 (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Besides, the plot section isn't meant to contain all the details of the plot, just the most important points. The episode list summaries are for more detailed descriptions that go beyond the general overview the plot section is meant to contain. Either way, if you continue to remove a comprehensive summary from the plot section if/when one appears again either by me or another editor, you'll get reverted on the basis of disruptive editing per the long-standing precedent to have comprehensive plot summaries in such articles, as I have tried to kindly show you above.--十八 01:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, why aren't there plots for any of the other anime articles I've seen? Care to explain that? Versus001 (talk) 02:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because no one has gotten around to writing them, which is likely because no one has improved them to the point of at least GA quality. Just because there exist other articles that have sub-standard plot sections doesn't mean that the convention of having comprehensive plot summaries in such articles is not common practice precisely because it is a requirement for at least GA quality, the rationale being that if books and movies have comprehensive plot sections, then so should TV series or any other fictional media, irrespective of other, more detailed summaries in an episode list. Redundant or not, like it or not, Charlotte will have a comprehensive plot summary, because I fully intend to get the article up to GA quality.--十八 02:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that the summaries you reverted were indeed substandard, now that I've read them, although I still believe that editing them instead of flatout removing them would have been the better option. Either way, I'll be including a summary soon about the length of the one on Angel Beats! and I am sure you will find it of satisfactory length and quality so that we don't have to discuss this issue any longer. Forgive me if I sounded biting before; I was just trying to clarify something about the expected quality of well-written articles, and I know from looking at the edits you've made in the past to the article that you are editing in good faith.--十八 06:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: OVA

Look, I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so I'll explain it again.

"Original video animation (OVA)" is only used if later on in the article, the acronym OVA appears again. List of Shirobako episodes does this, where you have "Original video animation (OVA)" in the second paragraph because OVA appears three more times in the next paragraph:

which is later used as the opening theme for the first OVA episode.
The ending theme for the first OVA episode
For the second OVA episode

If those 3 instances were not there, then (OVA) would not be included after "original video animation" in the second paragraph. This is why it is not included on Charlotte (anime), because OVA does not appear later on in that article after "original video animation" is used.--十八 03:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is also why this edit is correct.--十八 04:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at Umpqua Community College shooting 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.

^ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shooting-oregon-umpqua-community-college-article-1.2381711

[1] ttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/shooting-oregon-umpqua-community-college-article-1.2381711

[1]