User talk:Revirvlkodlaku

Archived conversations (2007–2022)

Gretel & Hansel

[1] Hello, is the same link https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/gretel-hansel-sets-2020-release-date-1202475 and the same reference

<ref name="exclusively">

search CTR+F in article for

<ref name="exclusively">{{cite web|first=Aaron|last=Couch|url=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/gretel-hansel-sets-2020-release-date-1202475|title=Fairytale Thriller 'Gretel and Hansel' Set 2020 Release Date (Exclusive)|date=19 April 2019|website=The Hollywood Reporter|access-date=4 July 2019}}</ref>

result: 3 identical references

Best Regards, Terraflorin (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Terraflorin, that's fair enough, thanks for explaining. Going forward, in order to avoid being reverted this way, I would suggest you explain your edits in the summary section. This avoids confusion for other editors, and it saves everyone time. Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Driving license in Italy

Your deletion action: 15:12, 21 January 2022‎ Revirvlkodlaku talk contribs‎ 3,075 bytes −1,540‎ Restored revision 1057019839 by 92.5.111.198 (talk): Subsequent edits constitute original research and add excessive detail undo Tags: Twinkle Undo I do not understand the rationale behind your unilateral decision to delete the content that I added. Would you mind explaining your consideration for "excessive detail" when the driving licence Wikipedia page for the country you state you reside in (Canada) (why not minding the considerable length of the text in the Canada page, instead of curating a page for another country (Italy) you do not live in?) is way longer than the page for Italy? I am looking forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.102.35 (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I've explained my reasoning in the edit summary, which you copy/pasted here, but let me try once more: the material you added to the article Driving licence in Italy isn't taken from an existing source; rather, you have written it based on your personal knowledge of the topic. While I'm sure what you say is accurate (I have family in Italy, and my sister obtained her driver's license there two years ago), this is called "original research", and it isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I also added the comment that it is "excessive detail", because much of it is unnecessary, in my opinion. Your point about the page on Canadian driving licenses is irrelevant in this case: I have never even looked at the page in question, and neither should it matter. The pages are separate, and they are curated by different editors. As with most pages in one category (in this case, if there were such a category, I supposed it would be "driving licenses around the world"), there is no template to follow, and seldom any consistency (I agree, however, that it would be nice to have that). I hope this answers your question :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarized Plot Synopsis of Mother/Android Article

Hello, the plot summary added on mother android page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother/Android) is copied word by word without credit from website https://dmtalkies.com/mother-android-ending-explained-2021-film-mattson-tomlin/

I request you, (being the senior admin) to delete or make changes in the text so as not to violate copyright issues.

The Wikipedia summary was added by an unknown user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FA49:3802:6900:11CB:17E:8B2F:6CBF) and it was posted on 18th January, whilst the original article was posted almost a month ago on the publisher's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikhar.agrl (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Shikhar.agrl, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have fixed the issue by rewording parts of the plot. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

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! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janie Bay (February 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Xclusivzik was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Janie Bay and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Janie Bay, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Xclusivzik (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Sons of Korah (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sons of Korah (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Korah (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Photonsoup (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

COI declaration

Hello,

Please remember to declare any conflicts of interest and check Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and Wikipedia:Notability_(music). Photonsoup (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Photonsoup, I'm not aware of any conflict of interest on my part. What's this about? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a strong accusation but it does seem like you are one of the only accounts maintaining the album pages for Sons of Korah (band), which considering that multiples of those pages have been speedy deleted and there only appears to be a couple of accounts working on any pages relating to that band, it looked somewhat like someone involved with the band was editing.

Photonsoup (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Photonsoup, I edited that page for the first time yesterday, and it was only a minor edit. I'd never even heard of the band before... Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, that's odd then! I think I may have mixed up similar screen names, in that case. In any case, sorry about that, and please disregard it. Photonsoup (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Janie Bay has been accepted

Janie Bay, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Xclusivzik (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

C+C Music Factory

There's no problem with you reverting my recent edit at C+C Music Factory, but see a discussion that is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A.S.K. M.E.. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contemporary classical.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Cast and characters

On Netrikann (2021 film), is that the name of the section? I thought it was just "Cast" per here. If it can be Cast and characters, please update it for the article Boomika since that article also describes the characters. Thank you! DareshMohan (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

DareshMohan, I'm not sure if you're genuinely puzzled, or if you're just pretending. I like it when the section says "Cast and characters", as I find it to be better representative of what the section includes. If you have a strong reason why it should only say "Cast", please present it to me. Otherwise, feel free to make the change on Boomika yourself, you don't need me to do that for you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku i was writing about mrs tendulkar characters so stop making changes! 116.75.161.236 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi, I have no objection to your recent edit to Na Ying, but the edit summary "fixed grammar" did not describe the changes that you made. Please use an appropriate edit summary, or type an explanation for the changes that you make, for every edit. This helps editors who may be watching the page. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london He left an edit summary of what was done. If you need to know exactly, go to the history of the article and look at it. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Accusations

Before accusing anybody of edit warring, make sure you aren't reverting multiple times. I only reverted once. So, slow your roll. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Mr. C.C. you have been on Wikipedia longer than I have, and yet you seem perplexed by my accusation of edit warring. According to WP:Edit warring, once you have been reverted, you are not to revert in return; doing so constitutes edit warring. All I'm asking is that you provide a satisfactory explanation or a reference for the edit you made on the Joe Satriani page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Mr C.C. is right and you are wrong. It only becomes an edit war after two reverts. Jamieneedsakicking (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Nope, inform yourself: WP:Edit warring. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bee Gees

When open the lead of that article to edit, there is a sentence we hope editors see. It reads "* Please, DO NOT INCLUDE nationality in this paragraph". The situation is complicated, and explained in detail in the second paragraph HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Baton Rouge

A Single with 12 different Tracks? Not typically! Rolz Reus (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rolz Reus, while you are a new Wikipedia user, which can excuse rookie mistakes (commenting on a user page instead of an article talk page when your conversation relates to the article itself), I'm willing to bet you are not new to adulting, so try not to be rude, ok? There's no call for skipping courtesies when communicating with other editors (can't be bothered to say hello first?), and there's certainly no call for shouting at them (your use of the exclamation mark). I'm personally familiar with The Nixons and know that they never published an album titled Baton Rouge. Besides my own knowledge of this, you can check any reliable discography, such as the one on Apple Music, to corroborate my assertion. The track "Baton Rouge" was the first on the band's 1997 self-titled album. If you believe this is incorrect, please provide the evidence. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mother/Android revisions (student editor)

Hello, I would like to ask about your most recent reversion on the Mother/Android page. While I will concede to not changing the Plot section of the article, can you explain why my other changes were reverted as well? As a student editor, I just want a better understanding of why all of my changes were reverted and not just the ones I made to the Plot section as you said in your revision edit summary:

00:02, 23 April 2022‎ Revirvlkodlaku talk contribs‎ 10,727 bytes −3,712‎ Restored revision 1083055044 by TheGlimmerTwin (talk): Stop messing with the plot section, it's fine as it is. undothank Tags: Twinkle Undo

I also have a student sandbox that I copied all my edits from which was included with every edit summary that I made. User:Nyaronya/Mother/Android

The other edits I made were mostly to the Reception and Production sections, as I felt like they were lacking and I was able to find more information on both of these sections. Again, I just want a better understanding of why everything was reverted and not just the changes made to the Plot section. Nyaronya (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nyaronya, my apologies for the wholesale revert. Since I've been editing/watching that page, a number of other editors, either unregistered or unconfirmed, have tried to add excessive detail to the plot section, usually containing numerous grammatical errors. When I saw your edits earlier today, I assumed they were along the same lines, and so I reflexively reverted everything without carefully looking at what you had actually done. I'll go back and look at the changes now, and as long as there's no issues with your edits, I will restore them. Otherwise I will let you know what I found objectionable about them. Thank you for speaking up :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Instant Noodle comments

current edit: "Modern instant noodles were created by Japanese inventor Momofuku Ando in Japan."

You reverted my edits in regards to the ethnicity of Go Pek-Hok (Momofuku Ando), the inventor of instant noodles, adding that "subsequent edits are of low quality and offer little in tems of improvement". Go Pek-Hok was an ethnic Chinese born and raised in Taiwan, who later immigrated to Japan after world war 2, where he invented instant noodles. While Go Pek-Hok was a naturalized Japanese citizen, the current sentence gives the reader the impression that instant noodles were invented by an ethnic Japanese, which is false. My edits made the distinction, and gives credit to a person of Chinese/Taiwanese descent.

However, you didn't revert the non-restrictive appositive noun phrase that followed ramen, which indicated that ramen is a Japanese adaptation of Chinese noodle soup. Before my edit, it said ramen was purely a Japanese noodle soup.

The lack of consistency baffles me. Why did you consider the appositive after ramen a substantial improvement in quality, while deeming the information about Momofoku Ando's background low in quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello LilAhok (consider using a greeting when addressing other editors. After all, this isn't a battlefield, and even if we have our differences, it doesn't hurt to be polite to others). I don't think the exact ethno-cultural provenance of Momofuku Ando is critical to the article, that is why I removed that information. For all intents and purposes, instant noodles were invented in Japan by a (naturalized) Japanese citizen. For readers interested to dig deeper, all they have to do is click on the link to Ando's page.

As for the mention of ramen's adaptation from Chinese noodle soup, that is directly relevant to the article, and this is why I replaced it after reverting all your other additions. Does that help? In future, for topic-related discussions, please take recourse to the article talk page, not editors' talk pages. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Hello, I'm VickKiang. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Celia Pacquola, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, if you want to add it again, please provide a better, more reliable source than Daily Mail. See the RSP link at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Daily_Mail. It states that "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." It is likely that I am incorrect, and it could also be cited elsewhere, so please use another link instead if there is one. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually add that link, I merely reverted another editor's (possibly yours) removal of it. No worries, another editor removed it again. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Nice, a template from the future. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 20:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Amadeus1999, what is your comment in response to? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: My bad, I forgot I had turned on header numbers so the date 8 May showed as 18 May which of course is in the future, so I assumed somebody manually messed up some formatting. Amadeus²² 🙋 🔔 17:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Scott Jeffers Traveler

Thank you for proofreading the latest edits. Could you allow / agree to reverse back to "traditional music appended with folk tunes inspired compositions" from your update "traditional music mixed with folk-inspired compositions"? The traditional compositions are appended by originals, e.g. Little Drummer Boy has Celebration (which is an original composition) added: statement from reference 22. Best regards Pinterma1000szer (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)pinterma1000szer

Hi Pinterma1000szer, I don't think wording it that exact way is grammatically ideal, but I can rework it, sure :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Pinterma1000szer (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Ali Abbasi (director)

Hi!

Concerning my edit that you just reverted: The original sentence didn't provide a reference for the institution where Abbasi studied architecture so shouldn't the sentence just be removed completely? For the record, The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences is a NOT a university, and you can not study architecture there. That should not require a reference. SakurabaJun (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi SakurabaJun, thanks for discussing instead of reverting. You are right, an unreferenced claim should either be removed entirely or a cn tag added to it. Knowing less than you seem to on the topic of Swedish universities, I will accept your point :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see if I can dig up a reference for KTH. Would be good since it appears several other language versions of Wikipeida writes the Royal Academy as well. SakurabaJun (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Kari Hietalahti

You may notice that I actually created the article with infobox years ago, but removed it later, since everything is already mentioned in the lead sentence; thus the infobox is completely redundant and can only be seen as an unattractive piece of decoration there. However, I'm not going to discuss this with myself on the article's talk page.

Regarding your edit summary ("Please make only constructive edits"), I will try, but I suggest you try to sound a little less condescending next time. Widr (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Widr, thanks for the feedback. You could have left this comment on the article talk page, as that way, other editors would have had a chance to contribute their thoughts (perhaps specifically on the topic of infobox/disinfobox). I agree with you that the infobox in this case isn't a huge contribution, but it isn't entirely useless either (I don't find it unattractive :) You could add to it by putting in some of the titles Hietalahti is known for, perhaps. Anyway, I'm not totally set on it, just didn't like the fact that you removed it. I didn't intend to sound condescending, by the way; I genuinely found your edits unconstructive (I detailed this in my summary). Well, apart from the personal life section+reference. Apologies for not taking that into consideration :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Widr, I took the time to respond to your message at length, and you haven't bothered to respond. Do you see the irony in pointing out a flaw in my communication—being condescending—while being guilty of a possibly worse one—ignoring another person who is attempting to talk to you? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

My initial message was not a conversation starter. It was a note. I read your reply, didn't agree with most of it, but since the subject is only marginally interesting enwiki-wise, it doesn't matter much. For me this discussion is over. Widr (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you are being rude, and if that's your approach to communicating with people, maybe drop the holier-than-thou attitude along the way. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

About "downthesun" (i said read talk page)

Hello! Since you didn't read the talk page, the talk page has come to you. This is why I changed the timelines. -chchchekit (talk page pasted below)

Hullo hullo. Judging by the sources provided they were still working in studio during 2003 all the way to december 2, 2003 (source = https://web.archive.org/web/20040603094150/http://www.downthesun.com/main.html); therefore to say 2003 is unrealistic. The band's website was defunct by 2006 and They did not break up following downthesun (2002) (this is sourced); so i argue that it was somewhere in 2004 as they maintained even to this point they were still active as a band. I am not good at fixing member timeline so eeee. ALSO: 2004 article saying "former" member by Oct. 2004 (https://blabbermouth.net/news/adayafter-take-short-break-seek-second-guitarist) and this by may (https://blabbermouth.net/news/former-downthesun-bassist-launches-the-hell-pigs)

Chchcheckit (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ha, you're right, I didn't read the talk page, because I didn't see your comment. Thanks for bringing the talk page to me! I think your reasoning on the timeline is fair, sorry for reverting. I'll fix it now :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Jinjer

Hello. Ukrainian name is Dmytro, Dmitriy the Russian name.--Zubryckiy (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zubryckiy, your comment doesn't belong on my talk page, it should be on the talk page of the article we are discussing (Jinjer). I'm familiar with your reasoning around the way the names are spelled—Russian vs Ukrainian—but whenever you make an edit, it is your responsibility to explain it in the edit summary. If you do not do this, other editors may not understand why you made the changes and thus reverse them. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Mesley

Do you see how the reference has an article title and a date in it? That's because it's the title of an article published on that date in the Waterloo Region Record which supports the claim.

We do not have a rule that all of the references in our articles have to be hotlinked to a web-readable copy of the source -- if we did, then we could never reference anything to books, or newspaper or magazine articles, or any other sources that were published on paper, and there are a lot of things we just could never reference at all if our sourcing rules prohibited print-only sourcing. The rule is that the references have to be reliable ones, not that they always have to be hotlinked to an HTML copy of them, and print-only sources such as newspaper articles found in news archiving databases like ProQuest are acceptable sourcing. As long as a footnote is to a reliable source and provides enough detail that it can be found if somebody needs to find it, it's an acceptable source regardless of whether the reference contains a hotlink to a directly-readable web copy of the source or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it makes sense. I think this conversation should have been kept on the article talk page, however, and you don't have to be condescending when explaining something you know and another person doesn't. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:TAGBOMBING

"The article either has sources or it does not have sources. There is no need to add {{citation needed}} tags to numerous unreferenced statements in an article when {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} would state equivalent information." FMSky (talk) 04:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC) also what do you mean "I believe your claim is incorrect", it literally says it in the guideline. --FMSky (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello FMSky, apologies for my passive-aggressive comment earlier, that was unnecessary. I'll point out to you that it isn't by being aggressive that you'll get anyone to agree with you. You can still get your point across while being polite. You haven't acknowledged the fact that you made a number of edits without leaving a single edit summary, and that you reverted my edit wholesale, ignoring all other changes I had made besides the citation tags, which you seem to be hung up on. You can be a wise guy all you want, as long as you don't make mistakes yourself. Please point me to the guideline that supports the claim you are making. I've had this discussion with one other editor in the past, and neither were they able to demonstrate this claim. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I already linked it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tag_bombing --and the quote above is from that page. --FMSky (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I do find it helpful to add the tags to statements that are not referenced, as it makes it easier for readers to differentiate between what is reliable and what isn't. I'm not set on it though, so if it bothers you that much, feel free to remove the tags. You still haven't addressed my other points, and I have the feeling you likely won't. Just don't undo my edit wholesale again, that would be rude. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Reservation Dogs that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Edit summaries like "stop being so arrogant" do not contribute to the building of the encyclopedia. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi CorbieVreccan, I know who you are, we've had one or two run-ins in the past, always on the Reservation Dogs page. You are right, calling you arrogant on Wikipedia is not civil, and I apologize for it. I do have an issue with the way you sometimes edit and revert, however, and yesterday I felt frustrated after you condescendingly told me to rewatch the episode whose summary I had edited, even though had you watched it carefully yourself, you would realize that you were mistaken. You are not wrong to call me out on uncivil behaviour, but I would encourage you to have some self-awareness and integrity. You made a mistake on the episode summary, and instead of admitting it and apologizing, you are focused on my transgression. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I did rewatch both episodes, clarify, and apologize for the bit I got wrong. Please read edit summaries. Yes, this has been a problem in the past, where you have deleted relevant content with an edit summary that could be perceived as condescending, or that doesn't adequately explain why you blanked it, such as "doesn't pertain to episode 1."[2] (when the content was later in the two-part opener). It has been frustrating when you are unclear this way, and then when you are aggressive and insulting on top of it, it makes for an inhospitable and difficult working environment. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, when other editors take the time to write episode summaries, or in other ways add text in a good faith effort to improve articles, it is not conducive to collaboration to call their contributions, "irrelevant" or "less relevant". You do this frequently. While it's one thing to want a description to be more concise, you often do this when you are also adding content that you personally prefer. What is and isn't relevant in these descriptions is almost always based on personal preferences and, as we've discussed on article talk, also based on familiarity (or lack thereof) with the cultures being depicted. You have often removed things simply because you do not understand them. Please watch how you characterize other's work, as some of your edit summaries could still be interpreted as insulting, or at the very least, dismissive of the time and effort of editors in good standing. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

CorbieVreccan, I think you are making far too big of a deal of this. Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, so if I consider a piece of text to be of low relevance, I boldly remove it. If you have a problem with that, you can discuss it on the talk page. Why take it personally and leave me messages here? Also, you aren't being constructive yourself by using words like "frequently" and "often". I haven't often removed content when I didn't understand it, that's a nonsensical accusation. Sure, I may have done it once or twice, and that's fine, just point out the error and move on. I'm ok if you find my edit summaries insulting, that's on you. I didn't mean to be insulting, and I certainly wasn't targeting anyone specific with my words. Perhaps you need to grow a thicker skin and not take things so personally. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Gin Han-sai

Hello. Gin Han-sai is the name the writer uses. See also https://www.netflix.com/browse/m/person/40200289. Netflix is one of the few sites that uses the correct spelling chosen by the person. Sadly, the English wikipedia and fan sites like Hancinema and Mydramalist usually propagate incorrect spellings. Moreover, Gin Han-sae, so far, only wrote two Netflix shows and has not other career, so, the spelling Netflix has should be chosen. And, I can not stress this enough, the spellings Netflix has is the correct spelling the actor, director etc. chose themselves. As you know, Koreans are not bound to romanization rules for their English spelling. They can chose it themselves. Sometimes, Korean newspapers also use the correct spelling, like JoongAng Daily or Korea Times. --Christian140 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Christian140, I'm sure what you say is true, and I suspected as much when I saw your edit, but as I noted in my revert summary, my main motive in reverting was that you made a change without bothering to leave an edit summary. Part of the problem here, I suspect, is that you assumed your reason for the change would be obvious to other editors and therefore, no edit summary was necessary. You hint at this attitude in your comment above, when you say "As you know, Koreans are not bound to romanization rules..." Here, you are assuming that I must know something that perhaps is well known to you, but this is a false assumption. Why would I be aware of this fact, unless I was familiar with Korean culture? Anyway, the point is, please always use an edit summary :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Revirvlkodlaku. Thank you for creating Akce Asanace. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Polyphia article

Hi, Revirvlkodlaku. I have recently edited the Polyphia page to expand the lead section and added citations. But I am unsure if there are discrepancies/mistakes in my edit. I see that you made edits recently from the revision history, so can you please give me feedback on my changes? Thanks. Khrincan (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Khrincan, I'll take a look at it now and will make changes as needed, with an edit summary. If you subsequently have any questions regarding my edit, feel free to ask :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey Revirvlkodlaku. I have noticed that you added a template saying that the lead section needs expansion. I am not sure which article topic(s) needs summarization in the lead, but I have made an effort to mention Polyphia’s style of music there. I am concerned that my edit may not be enough to resolve the issue, or it might be removed since I have seen an earlier revision reverted for being marked as orginal research/no references.

Article revision as questioned Khrincan (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Khrincan, it looks like I (re?)added the "lead too short" template to the article without remembering that we'd had this conversation in the past. Thanks for bringing it up. I added a mention of their releases, so I think that should take care of it. The lead is still short, but then the article itself is fairly brief, so I don't think the template is necessary. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

TimesNext.com

Sorry, didn't see that this had been recently reverted before on Sachiin J. Joshi. I was cutting out old links to it after Heena Vinayak (talk · contribs) revealed on their talk page that they'd added several such links while being co-founder of the website.

It's just press releases and promotional articles so far as I can tell. There's an RSN discussion open at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TimesNext_-_reliable?. Belbury (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Belbury, I appreciate you letting me know. Do you think the source is so unreliable that it's better to remove it and replace it with a cn tag instead though? That's an honest question, by the way, not trying to be snarky :) Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

It looks that way to me. Although the statement that it's being used to source (His father, Jagdish Joshi, is the owner of the JMJ group of industries) is repeated in the article body with a reliable Times of India reference, so it seems fine to simply remove the timesnext.com reference in this case. Belbury (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll modify the reference. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hi Revirvlkodlaku! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru when I reverted, I pointed out that you had deleted the comma without reaching a consensus on the talk page, so how about your heed your own advice? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

That's entirely irrelevant. We are in the process of discussing the change, but so far the consensus is 2:1 against your interpretation of whether the comma is required. You have now reverted the article four times in 24 hours, which is a breach of WP:3RR. Please self-revert and continue discussion on the talk page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's irrelevant that you decided to revert before achieving consensus on talk. I have continued the discussion—I posted a link to the grammar rule that supports my position. Please respond accordingly instead of focusing on my breach, which is a technical question and doesn't contribute constructively to improving the article. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

List of power trios

The band Karma to Burn has been a power trio for the majority of its tenure. The only time when they were not is when they first formed, and when the founding member Will Mecum passed away last year, leaving the band's activity put into question as of 2021. I am not sure why you undid my revision even when a source has been provided. HPSR (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, fair enough. I reverted because I didn't read the reference, I merely glanced at their current membership. Could you add a date range to the entry for when the band was a trio? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hudba Praha moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Hudba Praha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Lollapalooza

First of all I live in Chile, a country I guess you can't even pinpoint in a map. Lollapalooza 2023 will be hosted in the Cerrillos Biccentenial Park again. I don't understand why you continue reverting me even though I put a reference to it... Look at the official webpage, it says Cerillos not O'Higgins Park! https://www.lollapaloozacl.com/. The major of Santiago decided to not host the festival ever again at O'Higgins Park. https://www.elmostrador.cl/cultura/2021/11/17/productora-anuncia-que-lollapalooza-no-se-realizara-en-el-parque-ohiggins/

We speak Spanish here. Sorry I cannot give you English sources.... --SirHenryColp (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@SirHenryColp, let me inform you of a few things: 1. I also speak Spanish, and I have been to Chile. 2. If you continue to make disruptive edits to the page (such as replacing en dashes with hyphens), you will receive a warning. 3. If you ever post another aggressive and abusive message to another user's page, the way you did to mine, you will be reported for it. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I was agressive but I don't understand why are you reverting my edits if I have showed you evidence and refereces? The Ohiggin's park in Santiago will not be used for the 2023 edition of Lollapalooza there is plenty of sources, even the official webpage of the event. You continue to revert the correction I made with good faith. --SirHenryColp (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SirHenryColp we are actually arguing about two separate things. I haven't been reverting any content edits you've made. If you look carefully, I took the content you added regarding the Chilean Lollapalooza and simply transferred it to the appropriate section. What I've been reverting you on is your unexplainable changes of en dashes to hyphens, which you just made again a few seconds ago. Why do you keep doing that? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lollapalooza&type=revision&diff=1123410784&oldid=1123410042 Maybe it's a misunderstanding but if you look carefully you are reverting my edits on the park the festival is playing. Your version is saying that the festival will be played at the O'Higgins Park in 2023, my version is saying that it will be played on the Cerillos Park in 2023. All sources say that the park is the one in Cerillos. The last time the festival played in O'Higgins was in 2019. --SirHenryColp (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@SirHenryColp Yes, I believe you are misunderstanding me. Let's review your edit history on this article: On November 14, you made your first edit, in which you changed an en dash (–) to a hyphen (-). This is not an appropriate edit, as hyphens are not used for date ranges, so I reverted it. Then, on November 18, you made three edits. In them, you changed the date format audit date to January 2021, which is just weird and inexplicable; you changed a bunch of en dashes to hyphens; you made a number of inconsistent date format changes; lastly, you added the link that you keep insisting on. I reverted all your edits, and I took this link of yours from the infobox and placed it in the Lollapalooza Chile section, where I thought it belonged. I even explained this in both my revert summary as well as in the summary of my subsequent edit. Following this, you have gone back and forth with me a number of times, simply changing one en dash to a hyphen but still insisting that I was deleting your link. I don't know what's going on in your world, but this is highly erratic behaviour. The link you are so upset about is in the article, it's just no longer in the infobox! Why do you keep changing en dashes to hyphens? So far, your edits on this page have been disruptive, and your attitude has been rude. Please get your act together. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)