User talk:Jamie Eilat

Amphibia (TV series)

@Jamie Eilat I had already removed the actor names in the episode summaries of this show before, but there has a lot of edits that have been WP:FAN violations, and people just continue to make the list a mess. Actor names are already listed in the list of characters page, so they don't need to be on the episode summaries all of time. Please fix the issues on the episode list and report users who are doing WP:FAN violations. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war at List of The Owl House characters

I've blocked the IP range. Please note for the future that reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours can get your account blocked, regardless of who started it. -- Scott Burley (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. I'll make sure to keep it in mind. This is the first time I've encountered a situation like this, so I'll be making sure to better verse myself in Wikipedia's policies regarding these sorts of situations. Jamie Eilat (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (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.

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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exception to WP:EXISTING

Hi, regarding your reverts on Template:The Owl House. WP:EXISTING specifically calls out the exception that direct redirects to specific sub topics are permitted in templates and references {{MSPA}} as an example that uses them in the exact same way I have added them to the owl house template.

Please refrain from further reverting them, per the above policy. Raladic (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic I am aware of the exemption raised in WP:EXISTING. However, WP:NAVNOREDIRECT & WP:EXISTING specifically note this exemption being for specific distinct sub-topic, and the example given in WP:EXISTING is specifically noted as being "for the sake of completeness". I would argue that distinctness and completeness are not very applicable to the situation of Template:The Owl House, so that the exception should not apply. If, for example, it were the case that multiple, but not all, main and supporting characters already had their own pages, then it would be reasonable, for completeness, to include redirects for the remaining main/supporting characters for the navbox. But this is not the case. Instead, the show's protagonist (Luz) is the only character with their own page, with all other primary & secondary characters falling under the "list of characters" article.

It is also worth noting that your proposed formatting is in contrast to the precedent of all other American television series navboxes (including American animated series navboxes), which, with near total consistency, only include links for individual character pages and "list of characters" pages without any added redirect links. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example of Template:MSPA is exactly like here. It lists a series of comics, some of which have a main page, some do not and are redirects then to the specific sub-topic within the list article. That is why this general exception exists and is regularly cited.

It is also not quite correct that there are no other animated series nav boxes follow the same general exception, I just randomly pulled one from the list and immediately came across Template:Generator Rex which links to a redirect for some of the characters for completeness of the template and I’m sure there are many more if you went through them. Raladic (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that WP:NAVNOREDIRECT is concerned about something different, it is about if a certain page does have a main page article, that then the link to it from a navigational template should’ve directly to that page, not via a redirect, which results in that page then showing in black when that specific page is active instead of as a link.

That doesn’t apply here, as the correct policy here is that redirects to sub topics (in this case characters in a series) are permissible per the general exception of WP:EXISTING so that a navigational template is more complete and provides navigational value. Raladic (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a reference where another user similarly erred and removed a redirect and was subsequently re-reverted by another user referencing the exception of WP:EXISTING - diff, it even recently happened on the MSPA navbox itself - diff. Raladic (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jamie Eilat,

You sometimes have an edit summary but I'd like to encourage you to include one with every edit, especially when you are reverting very experienced editors. You can even set your Preferences to remind you to leave an edit summary (which is what I do). Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Thank you for the notice. I'll be sure to take it into further account — Jamie Eilat (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Scott Pilgrim Takes Off trailer logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Scott Pilgrim Takes Off trailer logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars for your efforts

		The Citation Barnstar
		Awarded for you work on List of rulers in Wales. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded for you work on List of rulers in Wales. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 27 November 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion about any future "Lonnie Kris Wellington" related vandalism.

Hi. Today I saw that an anonymous user AGAIN added this name and linked Kris to it, I know you reverted that quickly but I believe that while quite extreme it is best to both revert (and delete the revision from the archive, if you can do that) and ask an admin to block the user/IP for vandalism.

This is quite extreme, I am aware and I am perfectly fine with you not accepting it as a proper way to handle any such future cases of vandalism, however I am fairly certain that the person who added these again is the same one who added them before, and is therefore still stalking that Lonnie Kris Wellington person, which is indeed quite messed up and that's part of why I am suggesting such an extreme measure.

As the one who genuinely regrets ever making that redirect (not knowing it was a real person's name) and thus bringing this person's attention to it, I think its best to prevent any such incident from ever occurring again, especially given this is the real name of a private person who has no reason to be mentioned on Wikipedia and is only being mentioned and added because of their ex.

I hope you understood my suggestion, cheers. SignedInteger (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Undertale and Deltarune

Hello! Noticed you just did a few copy edits here. Not a biggie, but one edit was to change These skeleton brothers are known for their outlandish human-capturing schemes and function as comic relief within Undertale. into the text starting: A pair of skeleton brothers known for their outlandish human-capturing schemes, and who function . . . . Your change makes the sentence a non-sentence (without verb). It could be changed to "This pair of skeleton brothers is known for their outlandish human-capturing schemes, and they function as comic relief within Undertale." I didn't want to change it again, in case of offense; though I had just changed it, today, because previously it was a non-sentence. Do you want to change it? Sorry for the bother. Be well. — Yogabear2020 (N.B. NoviceEditor; Talk) 01:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amity Blight s2e13.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amity Blight s2e13.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Digital Circus as Adult Animation?

Hello, why is The Amazing Digital Circus considered an adult series if it isn't? CroakyReserva (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the show, Gooseworx, has gone on record to state that the show's target demographic is "people in their 20s" and that "[t]his show isn't going to be very suitable for young kids"; additionally, there are news outlets have either directly labeled the series as adult, such as The Mary Sue, or have referenced it as appealing to an adult audience, such as CartoonBrew. I probably will though add a citation or two for the use of "adult" in the article lead, since if seems like it ought to have one. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as I am Brazilian, the IMDb website says it would be for ages 10 and up, that is, TV-PG, this does not mean it is an adult series, and it gives me a bit of a headache to watch, I am 14 years old and I watch this series and it is a good series, it can be recommended only for teenagers from 13 years old, or it can be for ages 13 and up, on the Glitch website it says the audience is 13 to 24 years old. CroakyReserva (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition for adult animation presented on Wikipedia itself is "any type of animated motion work that is catered specifically to adult interests and is mainly targeted and marketed towards adults and adolescents" (emphasis added). The age range presented on the website does not thus serve to preclude the labeling of the series as "adult animation".

The matter of whether the series can be labeled as "adult animation" rests in whether there are reliable sources/citation that label it as adult animation, not in personal or subjective assessment; and, as I have already pointed out, there are reliable sources for the "adult animation" label. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't want it to be that way when I'm reading about the series because it's not "adult animation." CroakyReserva (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reply! CroakyReserva (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not wanting something to be the case does not make it so; if the sources describe the series as being "adult animation", then it is. "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I understand this properly and accept it? CroakyReserva (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netflix link, The Amazing Digital Circus is considered "adult animation" but Bee and Puppycat are also considered to be so (both programs are 13+) and several web series that are 13+ on Wikipedia are not considered "adult animation" despite there being a page listing web series for adults (13+ programs are included that on their respective page are not considered "adult animated" and also adult animation is not a genre and is only descriptive). 152.230.99.151 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, per Wikipedia's MOS:GENRE guideline, the main deciding factor for whether a series is classified in an article with some genre label is if that label "represent[s] the genre(s) specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Your argument here that 'series X doesn't use this genre label, so series Y shouldn't either' is rendered moot if series Y is indeed being reliably described using that genre label. In the case of TADC, if a distributor for the series (Netflix), news/review sources covering the series, and the creator of the series all describe the series as being adult animation/adult-oriented, then it is justified to label it as such in the article.

In regards to discrepancies between individual series articles & the List of adult animated web series article (which I assume is the one that you are referring to), then perhaps the "adult animation" genre label should be added to certain of the series articles, and/or certain of the listed articles should be removed from that listing, but that would be on a case-by-case basis of whether "a majority of mainstream reliable sources" do or do not describe each series as being adult animation/adult-oriented. (As a side-note for your specific referencing of Bee and Puppycat, there do in fact appear to be multiple secondary sources labeling that series as adult animation [1] [2] [3], so perhaps there should be discussion on adding that label to its article's infobox.)

And finally, the article for "adult animation" does in fact describe it, with citation, with the term "genre". — Jamie Eilat (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why this from The Amazing Digital Circus series???

why can't I make the series The Amazing Digital Circus not be considered adult, and why does it have to be that way, since there are no adult things, and only censored swear words??? CroakyReserva (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello

To what do I owe this series of cancellations? Have I created a problem?

F. M F Gervais (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Firstly, many of the images were included on pages that already had family trees or genealogies on them (created using either the Tree list or Tree chart templates), which makes the presence of the family tree image redundant. Secondly, the presence of personal website & social media links goes against Wikipeida’s policy regarding watermarks in images (see WP:WATERMARK) Jamie Eilat (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election#Remove RealClearPolitics from polling.

Hi Jamie Eilat. I have noticed that you have made edits to polling aggregates, and I would like to bring this discussion to your attention. If you have any thoughts about this, regardless of your stance, I encourage to make a comment. CountyCountry (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wihtwara

thanks for your recent edits fixing up that article - i presume you saw the youtube video, which is how i found out about it :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 15:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Caeneus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brill. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 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) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Amphibia

Please explain why you reverted. The page Amphibia redirects to Amphibian, which is a far more notable topic than the TV show. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 15:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created from a page move; there are talk page links that link to Template:Amphibia (TV) via Template:Amphibia, so changing the redirect would disrupt them. Jamie Eilat (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anybody care about a few talk page links from multiple years ago? —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deity equivalencies in infoboxes

In line with MOS:IBP, the equation of the two deities should first be discussed in the article, and should be significant enough to be considered a key fact about the subject of the article. Also, per this discussion, the identification should also have a clear basis in primary sources. We would also need more precise sourcing than a page range spanning 50 pages. I haven't reverted your change at Aphrodite, as some of what you added looks as though it might be worth keeping (or at least adding to the article's body), but the inclusion of those deities in the infobox (with the exception of Hathor and Isis) isn't currently justified. – Michael Aurel (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the page numbers. Two points on relevant parts of Budin's paper:

• "among the Persians Aphrodite was named Anaitis/Anahita," (p. 130). This isn't really enough, as we need a statement on whether the Greeks identified the two.
• "in the rest of the Mediterranean, there was a far more general syncretism" (p. 96). I don't think I would feel comfortable using this paragraph as a source here. Really we want a direct statement, something to the effect of "The Greeks identified Aphrodite with deity x during/from period y".

While the other cited parts could, I think, reasonably be taken as sourcing the identification of Astarte and Atargatis with Aphrodite on Delos during the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods, things aren't clear-cut; for example, Budin states that "What all these data make clear is that the perceived Aphrodite-Ashtart interpretatio-syncretism is an exaggeration" (and her article is titled "A Reconsideration of the Aphrodite-Ashtart Syncretism"). The point being that having these equivalencies in the infobox is distilling everything down to "Aphrodite = deity x", when things aren't that clear; we should use this parameter when the equation is clear and once the discussion of their identification in the article is at a point where it would be considered one of the key facts that appear in [the] article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie, did you see these messages? – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying sooner. On consideration, I think you've made a good set of points; I agree now that the infobox isn't necessarily the best location for the information taken from Budin 2004. I'll remove it from the infobox, & later on, when I have the time, I will probably try to add some of the information from Budin 2004 into §Worship instead – Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thankyou. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Digital Circus

Hi, I was wondering as to why my edit on The Amazing Digital Circus has been reverted. If you could please explain the reason that would be great. Thank you. DarkXWolf17(bite me) (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To explain: part of the manual of style guideline (MOS:TVPLOT) states that episode plot summaries, when presented in a table, should be "no more than 200 words per episode". Your addition to the Pilot's plot summary bumped it to beyond the 200-word limit.

i hope that helps to explain. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that makes sense. DarkXWolf17(bite me) (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I would like to know why I can't create an article for the fictional character from The Amazing Digital Circus, who is the main character in the series. When I have to edit one just for information about the character, it is always changed by you. I don't know why you don't let me do this, since you have a draft of this and I wanted to make an article related to it. But at the same time, I would like to apologize for my threats to you last year, for not accepting that it is an animation for adults, which you later denounced because I made sockpuppet, but now I am recently accepting this about the animation and that I am in fact very wrong because I am already very mature. I wanted to promise not to do this anymore. But with that, can I create an article for the fictional character from TADC??

Thank You... CroakyYes! (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, you're the same user as User:CroakyGames2010 / User:CroakyReserva? Both of those accounts still show indefinite blocks on them, and I'm not seeing any indication that an appeals process was initiated. Have you gone through a block appeal, or have you just... created an additional sockpuppet? Because even if you are well-meaning (which I am not doubting), that would still be serious block evasion.

Leaving that aside, and in regards to the creation of an article for Pomni: one of the general recommendations when creating new articles is that one should not create an article for a topic if a draft of said article already exists. Additionally, an article needs to be able to demonstrate the notability of the topic (along with the verifiability of the article content) through citation of reliable sources. The versions that you published, however, contained little-to-no citation. Hence my moving of the content to the draftspace, so that the material can be developed with references to ensure notability and verifiability. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the information. I was actually going to include the citations that are called references that have links. I apologize again for including the receptions and reviews that did not describe the reviewer's opinion. I wanted to do this because this is for all characters that have an article in themselves, but I was trying to search for information on opinions related to the character, but unfortunately I could not find any information. Because in the draft that you exported, you removed the reading of the review, which is not a problem, and then I removed the review title.

Thinking a little about that situation that happened at the beginning of October, and I say that yes, I was blocked after you received threats made by myself, that this showed that I was immature, in fact I am a teenager who is learning and having new opportunities, but I should have left it alone at that time, but I kept insisting that TADC was not an adult animation, but now I accept it because, I started to accept that the producer of the series made it for an older audience, but I wanted to express at that time that TADC would not be for children but for teenagers, but since the creator confirmed that she wanted to reach an audience of 20 years old, in addition to the content it brings we can say that yes, it is an adult animation, but having a maturity now, can everyone like you forgive me?

Thanks again! CroakyYes! (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? CroakyYes! (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand; however, I again want to emphasize the question of whether or not you have gone through any sort of block appeals process, because it does not appear that you have. The blocks that were placed on your previous accounts back in October ([4] [5]) are indefinite and still currently active. Again, I fully understand your desire for a clean start with a new account, and I do not currently doubt your well-meaning and good-faith. Nevertheless, by Wikipedia policy, if you have any "currently active bans, blocks or other sanctions imposed", then you are not allowed a clean start; if continue editing without having gone through an appeal for your original account, then what you are doing will not be a clean start: it will be block evasion.

It is for this reason that I greatly recommend that, if it is the case that you have not gone through a block appeals process for your original account, and/or have not communicated with an admin, that you should do so; you can also see the pages WP:Appealing a block, Help:I have been blocked, and WP:Clean start for further information if you have not already read them. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember going through this process directly, but I can confirm that I was blocked by both accounts. After some research, there was an article about the investigations into me, and about the case of wanting to create a new account to have a clean start. Maybe that's my intention, but it's not really my main topic because this isn't a social network where we can make friends, I don't know. Besides, I'm aware that this is an encyclopedia where we read articles and edit them too. If anyone would like to work on that, but if you can tell me where I can go through this process, I'll go! CroakyYes! (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to perform the block appeal process, you need to go to the "Blocked for sockpuppetry" section of your original account's user talk page, and add an "unblock" template to the bottom of it; in the "reason" parameter of the unblock template, you need to include a write-up explaining that you understand your actions, and explaining why you should be able to continue editing (much like what you have detailed & written here above). Again, for more information you can look through the three policy/help pages linked in my previous reply. And I want to stress that you should wait on any further article editing until the point if & when that unblock request has been approved. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello, I'm Justthefacts. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Justthefacts (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Justthefacts (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Kings protest

Hi, I added your content to the no kings protest article instead. Hope you don't mind. - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other Series Created by Kane Pixels

Hi! I noticed that you helped edited the page on Kane Pixels' Backrooms with accurate info a few months ago. This is probably a silly idea, but I was thinking about making some pages about other web series that Kane created, like "The Oldest View" and "People Still Live Here." Chadalvarez2021 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do know that there currently exist a draft article for The Oldest View. However, I don't think that The Oldest View or People Still Live Here have quite meet the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY to warrant their own articles the way The Backrooms (web series) has. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I also saw the huge gap between Parsons' Backrooms series when he began working on these projects. Should we separate the episodes between these gaps into seasons or just keep the table as it is? Chadalvarez2021 (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Golden (Huntr/x song) did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

or in the visual editor:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Describe what you changed

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dune: Part Three edits

Thank you for your edits on the Dune: Part Three page at the same time as me. I'm sorry if I were stepping on your toes, but we are both actively making improvements. Thank you! CNC33 (. . .talk) 02:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

I accidentally rolled back 3 of your edits. Sorry! Bearian (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem. Thanks for letting me know. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that even a big deal?

So the top of the letter d touches the closing parenthesis? Why is that a big deal? That doesn't make it hard to read, and I can't imagine it's causing a conflict to someone who thinks there's now some mysterious combination of the letter d and a closing parenthesis. Nobody bothers about introducing this or being this finicky about introducing an unnecessary, awkward-looking space on other articles, yet you have persisted on doing it. Skyversay (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are still largely legible as separate characters, so it isn't exactly the biggest deal. But a text collision is a text collision, & if it can be avoided with a simple template made specifically for that purpose, then what reason is there for not using it? You state that it is "awkward-looking", but the slight additionally spacing honestly stands out far less to the eye than the text collision does. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. The awkward space stands out a lot more to me and looks like a mistake. I don't know what device you're using but on mobile and desktop, for me, using Monobook, it looks fine. It just isn't a concern. I suppose fiddling with formatting is something you like to do, considering I haven't come across this on any of the thousands of music articles I've edited. Certainly at least nobody whom is dogged enough to reintroduce it. So that speaks to this being a particular issue for you and you alone. Skyversay (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]