User talk:Music1201/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Music1201. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Round-robin

Hi Music1201, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Americans. I made this redirect from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Of course, these additional redirects to be created could also use good judgment, but a move without redirect suppression would produce them anyway. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

your rejection of a correction to a semi-protected page was unworthy of rejection and I strongly suggest you research the request prior to making blank accusations about an edit's verifiability, kind sir

reGARDING this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANovak_Djokovic&type=revision&diff=719327536&oldid=719285006

You were wrong, and someone else made the request the next day. I'm not sure why you rejected this request. It was valid, and you need to be aware of your mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The subsequent edit request, unlike yours, was backed up by reliable sources. We can't just insert information that is supposedly true when there's nothing to verify it. Omni Flames (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Gee, you could have just looked it up. Just make that page editable anyway. OBviously I'm not trying to make errors to pages. But wikipedia doesn't care. It's a dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@98.204.228.159: In the future, please make sure your edit requests are backed by reliable sources. — Music1201 ^talk 00:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

do you see any evidence of me making or requesting an improper edit in the main or template namespaces? Assume good faith or something?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how we do things around here. If you want something added to an article, you have to find a source to back it up. It's not the job of the processor of the edit request to do all the research so that a poorly sourced request can be enacted. Omni Flames (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No other editor has ever denied my request on that article. I suggest that you patrol only topics that you understand. Anyone paying attention to tennis would have known that was a legitimate request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true. Any other editor would've also declined such a request. Whether or not the request was legitimate or not makes no difference, you need a source. Omni Flames (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Once again, everything is backwards. You just called me a liar ("that's not true") when in fact YOU CAN LOOK AT MY HISTORY ON THAT PAGE and the requests WERE HONORED. Further, there are no sources immediately after an event (minutes after it) so ONLY PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THE TOPIC SHOULD BE DENYING LEGITMATE EDITS.

Stop calling me a liar. Go check my other requests that WERE honored. Again, I am not the problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.228.159 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, since you asked, I did check your other comments on that page. You made two previous comments (not formal requests for additions, just comments) on that talk page: here and here. Nobody replied to them; they seem to have been ignored. In early May you made a formal request to have information added here; the request was declined by Music1201 because there was no source, no reference. A few hours later somebody else made the same request but did supply a source, and that was added. You noticed this yesterday, six weeks later, and you have been carrying on and on (25 or 30 edits so far) about it, insulting Music1201 for not doing it when you requested it, and insulting other people for telling you that you shouldn't insult people. NOBODY gets that worked up because someone declined a request a month earlier. Nobody but you. I see from your earlier history that this kind of thing has been a pattern with you, and in fact you have been blocked twice for personal attacks. Bottom line: this is not about Wikipedia; it is about you. Yes, you ARE the problem here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)