User talk:Abbyjjjj96: Difference between revisions

Russian stress marks

Please stop all edits with regard to Russian stress marks. Edits should not be made while there is an ongoing discussion. DrKay (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there was a discussion. Thanks for letting me know. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Alina Kabayeva religion

Please refer to talk page of Alina Kabayeva before undoing my work Agulani (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LR says information should not be removed if a source is dead. There was no point leaving a comment on the talk page to say that when I could just tell you in the edit summary of the revert. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove it because it was "dead" which is not true, i removed it because it did not state that she convert to Christianity since when reading bible means conversion? I'm Muslim i have read Bible and Torah, how does that make me Christian? You can not claim that someone is Christian/Muslim/Hindi and etc. without a confirmed source Wiki is not place for "gossips" and what babushkas talk in podyezd. if you want to refute with sources please refer to talk page as everyone does hence its called "talk page" Agulani (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

When I try to go to the source, I get a security warning and it takes me to the website's home page and not an article about Kabaeva. I will reply further on her article's talk page. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What do with it?

Some of his out of marriage relationships included relationship with Zeenat Aman,[326] Emma Sergeant, Susie Murray-Philipson, Sita White, Sarah Crawley,[1] Stephanie Beacham, Goldie Hawn, Kristiane Backer, Susannah Constantine, Marie Helvin, Caroline Kellett,[327] Liza Campbell,[55] Anastasia Cooke, Hannah Mary Rothschild,[328] Jerry Hall, and Lulu Blacker.[329][330] Stephenfryfan (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I just wanted to make sure that you saw this. You inadvertently got caught up in something at Talk:Emma Portner. Mo Billings (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth Gloster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boris Berezovsky.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Johnny Depp

Making a WP:BOLD edit to the lead as you did here regarding Johnny Depp's divorce is fine, and perfectly in agreement with editing policy. However, when you are reverted for cause and then reinsert the same material again, you are engaging in WP:EDITWARRING. The correct action in a case like this, is to raise a discussion on the Talk page to talk out any content disagreement among interested editors and to seek consensus on what the article should say, not to simply insist on your preferred version by reverting back again. You have years of experience as an editor, and I'm sure you know this already. As it happens, another editor came in behind you and returned the lead to status quo ante, and invited you to discuss. Next time, please follow the suggestions at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle if a similar case arises. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You reverted me claiming I violated a policy which actually supported my edit, as I pointed out. The other editor informed me there was a discussion on the talk page, and I sent them a thanks for that. You wouldn't have been able to see the thanks, but you'll note that I did not revert again. I was not edit warring as that requires repeated reversions and I only made one, and I'd argue that reversion didn't really go against WP:BRD either (your reversion was not truly supported by a policy. See WP:BRD-NOT), so your comment here is completely unnecessary. In the future, please take more care when citing policies so as not to incorrectly claim editors have violated them; it is unconstructive. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I did notice you didn't revert again, and following up by discussing is the right way to go, so thanks for that. One thing to think about: if it's okay to undo a revert that isn't supported by policy, then it is *always* okay to undo a revert by anybody, anytime. Why? Because when editor B reverts editor A, then editor A gets to evaluate whether editor B's revert was supported by policy or not. So, if A thinks B reverted contrary to policy, then A can simply undo the revert. Do you see a problem with this logic, vis-a-vis WP:BRD? Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Karolína Kurková, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vogue.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

MOS:CURLY

Ah, that makes sense. I knew Wikipedia would prefer those "straight" quote marks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ubl template in infobox

Hi, I noticed your use of the ubl template in the infobox in Garry Kasparov. It looks logical to me and my reaction was, "Why didn't I think of that?" But I wonder if there is some policy that says you should use ubl in this situation, use bare <br> in that situation? There are probably quite a few chessplayer bios in which this technique could be used, if it is correct to do so. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: Hi, I think I recently saw another user's edit summary cite a policy/guideline saying that <br>'s should no longer be used (possibly just in the infobox??), however I can't remember what they cited or which article it was on so I'm not certain (maybe it was just their personal preference). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe MOS:UBLIST or MOS:NOBR. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much! Bruce leverett (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

(watching:) instead of ubl you could also use {{hlist}}, and - as far as I know only "br" is bad, but "br /" ok. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:NOBR says "Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br />)." Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Boris Johnson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is in the CNN source. Maybe read it? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. DrKay (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Eh, my second revert was because you ignored the cited guideline. Only afterwards did you provide a reason (which only partially restored your edit and kept part of my change which you had reverted before, cherry-picking from the same guideline you had cited yourself earlier). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Ignored the cited guideline? No. Consensus at the cited guideline is clear: the birth name parameter should not be used merely to show the middle name. DrKay (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

And now you are misrepresenting. I'm not talking about the talk page archive you gave as a reason afterwards. The cited guideline was Template:Infobox person; you ignored that the name parameter is for the common name/article title, not the full name. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresenting? No. I directly quoted from the template page. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

*Sigh*, is this conversation really continuing? Another misrepresentation from you. Your direct quote was in the edit summary that prompted my first reversion, citing the same template guideline. My second revert was of your edit with the summary "remove repetition". Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I am required by policy to respond to queries regarding my actions. There is nothing in any of my edit summaries that is misleading or inaccurate. DrKay (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The misrepresentations are your comments here on my talk page, not in your edit summaries. I should have just commented on your talk page before reverting a second time, but I first commented here in response to the warning to explain why I reverted again (it's my talk page, after all). Your first edit regarding this cited a template guideline, then I reverted citing another part of the same template guideline, then you reverted with the justification "remove repetition", ignoring the template guideline. But when I explained that (above) as the reason for my second reversion, you responded by denying ignoring it and mentioning the guideline at the talk page archive, which was what you cited after my second reversion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm obviously not ignoring the template guidance. That is clear from my edit summaries and comments here. The template guidance is to not repeat the name in the birth name parameter. The birth name parameter is used when the birth name is different from the name. It is for showing when there are changes in name from birth. DrKay (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox person does say that (although the part about not mentioning the birth name unless it has been changed is not on the main page but buried in the archive, which is contradicted by the infobox example). It also says that the name parameter is for the "common name/article title", but you restored his middle name to the parameter, so you were ignoring the guidance there (and, because the birth name bit is only in the archive and not on the main page, I thought you were ignoring the guidance for that too, as I was unaware of the archive discussion which you did not cite until afterwards). Your final edit after my second revert did not restore the middle name there and linked to the archive discussion, but I did not dispute that edit and it was my second revert that I was explaining here since that's what you gave me the edit warring warning for. If you respond here with more misrepresentations, I'm not going to bother and will just revert you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Indentation at Talk:Elliot Page

Hi Abbyjjjj96! I am hoping you will self-revert your recent edit at Talk:Elliot Page. The other editors tweak looked like a MOS:LISTGAP accessibility fix. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Elliot Page

Hi, I just wanted to explain why I modified your comment. It's an accessibility issue, as written up at Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks: while the visible formatting doesn't change, the underlying HTML structure that Mediawiki generates changes, and it does so in a way that makes screen readers have a much tougher time parsing the text. It's best to avoid mixing asterisks and semicolons when indenting on talk pages. Sorry for making what looks like a pointless modification of your edit, but there was a reason; I won't edit it again, but I'd ask that you reinstate the change to an asterisk. No stress, though. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

lol Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not aware of that guideline! I think I made minor formatting corrections to another user's comment to fix a list on a discussion before and was reverted and told not amend other people's comments at all. I reinstated your correction and corrected the others as well. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Great corrections! Fixing format errors is one of the exceptions to the our guideline against editing others' comments, but I also get push-back sometimes and find a courtesy talk page message usually does the trick. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks from me too! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)