User talk:Mk8mlyb

Opposite field edits

Hi Mk8mlyb! I see you've reverted a couple of attempted merges of the opposite field page. Could you voice your opinion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Proposed_merge:_Opposite_field_into_Glossary_of_baseball? We'd love to know your thoughts! Thanks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Garry Templeton‎‎, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in 1984 San Diego Padres season, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Specifically, please follow MOS:EGG regarding intuitive linking. Thanks! —Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I'm Tarl N.. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Super Bowl XLVI, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See also WP:NPOV Tarl N. (discuss) 20:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are making a lot of edits which seem to consist entirely of adding uncited text declaring how impressive things are. Please read WP:PEACOCK. This is an encyclopedia, we intend to record verifiable information, in an encyclopedic manner. We don't need to have text "punched up" to make it more exciting. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page to here, to continue conversation where it started:

What do you mean, I needed sources? I get the somewhat flowery writing, but most of the info I put on there didn't need to be cited. There's something called observation and comparison. In fact, I calculated the 2007 New York Giants' strength of victory all by myself. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

All statements in Wikipedia must be cited. See WP:V. Flowery writing is what caught my attention because it by itself can be reason to revert an edit. In the sports articles, regrettably, authors often don't bother with citations, but that doesn't excuse not using them - and failure to cite is sufficient reason to revert changes. As for "observation and comparison", your recent changes to 2007 New York Giants season consisted of adding:

(both of whom they had lost to in their first two games of the season by ten points or more), to get to Super Bowl XLII, all while being just as favored to lose, and after looking very unimpressive at times during the regular season (despite their 10-6 record, generally considered playoff-caliber, they had a point differential of +22, went 3-5 at home, and had a strength of victory of just .375).

I see several statements in there which need citation. The point differential, strength of victory, considered playoff-calibre, looking very unimpressive, favored to lose, ... Those statements would need citations, but are inappropriate for being WP:PEACOCK and counter to WP:NPOV. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, and self-revert the inappropriate changes. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to comment on the last statement you made: I calculated the 2007 New York Giants' strength of victory all by myself.. That is original research, and is prohibited. See WP:OR. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further conversation from other talk page:

Really?! You're telling me the point differential has to be cited? All I had to do was look at the standings to find that out! You mean I have to put THAT as a citation? GRRR! This is frustrating. Can't people look at it for themselves? It's not rocket science! But whatever, I'll take a look at it. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia polices listed at the welcome page linked above by another editor. In theory, ALL statements in Wikipedia must be cited. This generally means that any given sentence should have a citation, as opposed to every word. If you are producing sentences which require citations from multiple sources, you are engaging in synthesis, not reporting. Please read WP:SYNTH.

What I am observing is that your edits reflect addition of emotional content, intending presumably to make it more exciting to read. That's not what Wikipedia is about. And again, I notice you removed some text from the article I complained about, but you have still left a mass of uncited flowery text. I'll revert the entire set of edits from the past several days if I have to.

In case you aren't aware of where to look for Wikipedia policies, I'll include the standard welcome text below, which has pointers to the policies and procedures. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 04:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, copying from my talk page. The place to hold a discussion is where it is started, not scatter across multiple pages.

Look, pal, I'm just following what I see on the page, okay? If you read the articles, they have the same stuff throughout. All I'm doing is staying consistent. Look at the playoff section of the 2007 season article. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I put some sources on both articles. Is that enough? Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

No, the idea is not to place the URL to the NFL website's 2007 season. Please read WP:SECONDARY. We are to report what others write, and link to it. If the score itself were an important point, you could cite the NFL website — but in this case, all you're doing is adding punch-up text. This isn't a case of something new coming up and adding to an article because nobody knew about it before (or that it isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article), but that you wish to place your own interpretation of events in the article. That's WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed. Your own interpretation of events is not welcome, that simply leads to edit wars.

And again, please reply here, where the conversation is taking place, not scattered on other pages. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for your placing your own interpretations, see WP:FORUM item #3. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not placing my own interpretations. I simply compared the two. Was it not fact that the 2011 squad drew parallels with the 2007 squad? Where's the error in saying that? What did I miss? Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You came up with an interpretation, both in what the comparison was and what it meant. Again, what Wikipedia should do is report what is written elsewhere. Your interpretation, including things like "cinderella season", "parallels to 2007", "earn a date", "blowout", "put himself into NFL lore" and the like are your opinions about what they meant and what's important. They don't belong. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TONE. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't completely my interpretations. Read the Helmet Catch article. Heck, just read any of the articles that pertain to what we're talking about. I'm doing nothing different from them. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I can't fix every problem in the world, my problem is primarily preventing additional damage. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have a point, so I'll give you credit there. But still, I think the stuff I put on there deserves mentioning in some fashion. Maybe sprinkle it throughout the articles? Mk8mlyb (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you really have found sources for something new in those articles, a decade and more after the fact? Or are you just looking to add punch-up commentary? Again, statements added to articles should be properly cited - read WP:CITE. In general, that means you should be providing a summary of what someone else wrote, not providing your own personal take on the events. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source for some of those claims, but they come from YouTube. Is that okay with you? Here's the link: [[1]] (12:25). Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, citing youtube is a lousy idea. The videos are subject to being removed, you almost always run into WP:PRIMARY, as well as being a pain in the ass for anyone to find what you are claiming is cited. At one point, there was a bot which went around deleting citations pointing to youtube because they were almost all garbage. Again, the idea of Wikipedia is not for you to decide to say something and then find references to back it up. In writing about a subject, it should be researched, and the most salient information put in the article with pointers to where it came from. Your edits directly violate at least WP:V, WP:TONE, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Mk8mlyb! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Tarl N. (discuss) 04:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your edits on 2011 New York Giants season

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2011 New York Giants season, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Upjav (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16

The AFC and NFC are now artificial constructs within the NFL....and the number of teams in the NFL is ephemeral. Possibly appropriate under 32, but not 16. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tom Brady; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. —Bagumba (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2019 (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. —Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, while the ANI case is in progress, you might want to lie low. Given the mess that's been going on over the last month, it's always possible the closing admin decides to have mercy on you. But only if you back off - the fact that you acknowledge you were not innocent is a positive (it shows you know what you did wrong), but you need to show in actions that you realize how much of a problem the issue of edit warring is. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't notice, as we were having this discussion, your case got closed with a warning. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mk8mlby_reported_by_User:Bagumba_(Result:_Warned) . Take it to heart! Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Montana

Incidentally, I had edited Montana's article the other day, adding a cite for some of his SB records. The source stated that Montana "generally was regarded as the most accomplished QB in NFL history". Would you be interested in helping to spruce up Montana's article w.r.t. GOAT claims? Also, Jerry Rice is constantly having IPs add that he is the greatest, while one registered editor has been regularly reverting it, presumably because of stickum. I'll need to dig into it more, but I don't recall it really changing his stature as the GOAT WR.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Stanley Cup playoffs

Your edit was a good start, but what happened to the division winners was much worse it was the first in league history. Deadman137 (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaws (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thriller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You are right on the edge of a 3RR block at Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe). BD2412 T 02:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I wasn't doing anything. In some cases, it's them who are edit-warring me. I'm not trying to be obnoxious, I'm just trying to edit right. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this, then. BD2412 T 03:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2021 NBA playoffs, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Drill it (talk) 19:33, 15 June 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (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) 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mk8mlyb, Zionism is covered by a compulsory WP:BRD restriction, quoting from the notice at the top of Talk:Zionism "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" (emphasis from the notice).

You made a change at Special:Diff/1261444899 and were challenged by reversion by me at Special:Diff/1261446651. Thus your edit at Special:Diff/1261447403 to make the same change again was a violation of the active arbitration remedies in place on the article. Please take care not to do this again. I suggest you read all of the notices at the top of Talk:Zionism. TarnishedPath^talk 04:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: actually, Mk8mlyb violated 1R twice (their first change is this one, which was followed by the other two reverts that you cited).

@Mk8mlyb: I didn't report you the first time around because I assumed that you're new and not familiar with the rules regarding the contentious topic, but now that you are, there will be no more excuses and uncalled for comments such as this one (essentially, a personal attack) will be dealt with appropriately. M.Bitton (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton I missed that diff. In any case this is going to AE as soon as I get home after the message they left on my talk. TarnishedPath^talk 11:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: you're right, you might as well nip this "truth seeking" in the bud. M.Bitton (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do wrong? I'm trying to remove what is clearly antisemitic content and propaganda. If you're willing to defend antisemitic content that violates the site's neutral point of view for the sake of procedure, that says more about you, not me. I'm just trying to tell the truth. Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot ignore this report. I suggest you comment there. M.Bitton (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading this essay. Gue101 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

re: Zionism and antisemitic sources. I have 3 questions

There are 14 sources cited. Have you looked at them? Which ones are antisemitic?
How did the lead of the article come to your attention? Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm

Can you please explain how you think this is at all helpful for the development of the article? The talk page is not a WP:FORUM for your personal opinion. Kindly desist. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about my personal opinion. I'm stating facts. Isreal is not engaging in ethnic cleansing and the idea that they are is pro-terrorist propaganda. Some of the sources used to prove this idea are indeed antisemitic, like Rashid Khalidi. I mean, this is a man who justified the October 7 massacre, the worst killing of Jews since the Holocaust. It's upholding a neutral point of view to get rid of that stuff. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying here this response made at my talk page Please keep the convo where it started, thanks. Oh OK, you have done so, thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Mk8mlyb. Thank you. TarnishedPath^talk 12:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the subject of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the appeal process. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accused as a sock puppet

You have been accused of being a sock puppet in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. You should respond to charges on that page. 5.47.169.16 (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Stop reverting on the Mario (franchise) page until/unless there is a consensus for your change. The procedure isn't "drop one comment on the talk page and revert endlessly. It's follow WP:BRD and only proceed if you have a WP:CONSENSUS Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning. It doesn't appear that you've persuaded a single person on the talk page, so you shouldn't be reverting to your preferred version again. If this happens again, your account will be blocked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 04:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you've noticed the talk page, I've been trying to make my argument, but I don't think anyone's listening. And besides, why am I required to seek consensus when other people are editing without seeking consensus? Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The burden generally falls on the person who wants to make the change to get a consensus that supports change, but even beyond that, there's not a single person who has agreed with you, 3 who oppose you on the talk page, and I think even another person or two who has voiced opposition through edit summaries. You're actively editing against a consensus at this point. You can't just start making your edit again just because people don't respond to your every comment, that's not how it works.

If you want get more participation, consider asking for input at WT:VG. You need to ask neutrally though, you have to make sure you follow WP:APPNOTE. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but when was the consensus established in the first place? I've seen one person who edited the article to clarify that Mario Bros was the first game with Mario in the title, but that's not good enough. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are the sole person advocating for something, with 3-5 people disagreeing with you. What exactly are you failing to understand here? Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before about 1 month ago, Donkey Kong was accepted as the first game in the Mario series. When people edited it to say Mario Bros, they didn't get any consensus for their change, they just straight-up changed it. But now that I'm trying to change the article back to what it was, people are up in arms about it? I fully acknowledge that I should not have edited the article recklessly without seeking approval, and that was a mistake. But this doesn't make any sense. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you were trying to implement a change because that's usually the situation when a single editor (you) are edit warring with multiple other editors. If your stance used to be the status quo, then at the time, it should have stayed at your stance, but that point is now moot that there's a talk page discussion where there's currently three people on the talk page against it, and only one in support. It needs to stay out until/unless that ratio changes. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that I'm not the sole person that has said this. The editors here make good points. And the argument for Mario Bros involves improper synthesis and personal interpretation, as Shacknews doesn't directly state that Mario Bros is the first game, just that it's the first to have Mario in the title. Mk8mlyb (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned that you're including an editor who left no edit summary and has not joined the talk page discussions as an example of "the editors here make good points". I'm not participating in this content dispute, so you need not argue merits with me, but your second WP:DIF very literally contains no explanation for their edit or stance at all. Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not participating in this content dispute, so you need not argue merits with me." So what you're saying is that you don't have an opinion one way or the other. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not an active participant in this dispute, I'm an admin monitoring the discussion, trying to make sure people are following policies/guidelines. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Conyo14 (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, exactly what edits do you consider disruptive? I believe I have been trying to make edits that are constructive and improve the quality of the articles. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[2], [3], [4] These edits. They provide WP:TRIVIA that is not helpful to the article. Conyo14 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can understand 2 and 4, but how is 3 not helpful? It provides important context and information to the section. Mk8mlyb (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because in one of the greatest upsets in history is very non-neutral and without attrition to a reliable source is trivial. Avenging their playoff defeat from last year is also very unnecessary. These kind of edits give it a fan's POV into Wikipedia, which is not exemplary to the five WP:PILLARS. Since it was your third edit doing this across the playoffs articles, I upped it to a level 2 warning. Conyo14 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't there sources to corroborate that? There is an entire article that is made with sources that back up what I said. I was under the impression that I was quoting sources that had talked about how the Lightning entered the 2020 series wanting to avenge their playoff defeat against the Blue Jackets. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's POV, it doesn't matter. We maintain WP:NPOV. If anything, that can be added to that article, not the playoffs article. Conyo14 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries in the main space

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made 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, 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)

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! Flibirigit (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello, I'm Flibirigit. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Mike Bossy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Flibirigit (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]