User talk:TMProofreader

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, TMProofreader! Thank you for your contributions. I am ToBeFree and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame

Hi, TMProofreader, on List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame you removed the special stars without any explanation other than "The Screen Actors Guild (or whoever) does NOT belong on the Hollywood Walk of Fame!" You may not think they belong on the Walk of Fame, but they're there, so they should be included in the list. Trivialist (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Sesame Street are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 19:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Confirmed User

Hi mate. Many thanks for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.208.153.96 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Is" in titles

Hi. It's an easy mistake to make, but since "is" is a verb, it's capitalized in titles. —Chowbok ☠ 02:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Wikilinks to individual Academy Awards years

Is there a reason you are changing these specific Wikilinks to general ones? Please get consensus to do this on the individual articles' talk pages, at a minimum; if there are valid specific articles for individual years in which the Academy Awards were presented, there is no good reason in my view (or, likely, most other editors') to change the Wikilinks to those of the Academy Awards generally. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? What consensus? --TMProofreader (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're redirects. --TMProofreader (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the editor who began this section. Please do not change specific internal links to specific Academy Award ceremonies, as you did in the lede of the article for The Magnificent Ambersons. It is valuable to offer the context of the year in which the film was nominated for the Academy Awards. — WFinch (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linkclassifier

Regarding your edits to this template, you might find this script useful as it highlights the redirects. Schwede 66 18:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? --TMProofreader (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is number of awards special?

Hi, thanks for your edits, here. I was under the impression, per MOS:NUMERAL, that values one through nine were to be spelled out, like they were before your edit. Is there something special about a number of awards that dictates they should be numerical in the body text of this article?
Thanks for any insight you can provide. Elfabet (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pipping existing links

Please review WP:NOTBROKEN in regards to this edit., the link that was there worked, we do not pipe links just to avoid redirects Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in The Sting. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Sorry. --TMProofreader (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and undo the edits you made that go against WP:NOTBROKEN. thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at The Trial of Mary Dugan (1929 film), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.

Please stop - FlightTime (open channel) 21:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Susan Lenox (Her Fall and Rise). - FlightTime (open channel) 21:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right! I'm sorry! --TMProofreader (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Said that about an hour ago, but you keep on. Your going to get yourself blocked. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you were warned a month ago for the same thing. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Bronx Zoo (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Wilson (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) 12:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Path to 9/11, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marc Platt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited My Little Chickadee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Margaret Hamilton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Drop Dead Gorgeous (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McShane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kit West, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Ellis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Margaret Dumont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What a Way to Go (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section title links are a no no

See MOS:HEADINGS. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delinking redlinks

I noticed that you did a pass through A Cure for Pokeritis to delink various redlinks. Some of those probably do in fact deserve to be delinked, and at least one turns out to already have an article under a slightly different formulation of his name. I haven't reverted the others (J[ustin] Ringelben and A. Seymour Brown, in particular), but I'm tempted to; these are lyricists who I think probably are notable, but that we don't have articles for at this time (in part because the state of affairs for 1910s and 1920s film and associated topics remains extremely poor). Redlinks aren't inherently bad, and so I'm curious what your motivation was for this editorial action? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here, as I'm not certain whether you watchlisted my talk page (and feel free to reply here, if desired). I understand that you're working to improve the encyclopedia, and certainly, some redlinks shouldn't be links at all! However, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Red link; not all red links are bad. I've reverted a couple of the redlink removals you made to A Cure for Pokeritis because I have a good-faith belief that Justin Ringelben, Jr. (largely known professionally as Justin Ring) and Albert Seymour Brown are notable. They just haven't had articles written yet. Wikipedia isn't done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:28, 28 October 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm Zanhe. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Template:NPCSC Vice-Chairpersons. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please, only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop unlinking red links without explanation or good reason. Read the above message. Sundayclose (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Magitroopa. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ryan's Mystery Playdate, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cult films

Please stop with the edits that you're making, which go against WP:SEAOFBLUE, unless you have a clear consensus to make them. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be two links next to each other link this. Just link to the most appropriate article, per WP:SPECIFICLINK. In this case, it's cult film. If necessary, you can pipe it: [[cult film|cult status]]. Splitting a phrase into two different links is confusing for readers because they can't tell which link they're supposed to click on, and the labels for the links are equally vague. For example, "[[cult film|cult]] [[cult following|status]] is a violation of WP:EGG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb said so when describing the films. --TMProofreader (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:RS/IMDB). Secondly, the manual of style for film articles stipulates to limit film genres to the primary genre only: WP:FILMLEAD. Betty Logan (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piping redirects

Hi, I see you've been warned about this a few times in the past, in the #Pipping existing links and #April 2019 sections above, but please stop removing perfectly good redirect links in favor of piping them. See WP:NOTBROKEN, to which you have been referred in the past. There's nothing wrong with redirects, and they're easier to read in markup. What's more, by piping instead of redirecting, as you did here you do a serious disservice to the reader. The redirect properly takes the reader to the "So bad it's good" section of the article cult film, which makes sense; by piping instead, you dump the reader in at the top of the article with no idea what it has to do with the link they clicked.

Please stop it. TJRC (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you ignoring people who ask you to stop doing this? If you continue, I'll block you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 16:59, 24 August 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of years in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Jackson's Thriller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael O'Shea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Yellen edits

You removed several wikilinks to songs by Jack Yellen from his page without explanation H:ES. Would you care to provide an explanation?BuffaloBob (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 63rd Annual Grammy Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Schneider.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (film). You have repeatedly , repeatedly been warned against making these edits in contravention of WP:NOTBROKEN. Stop. TJRC (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTBROKEN

Please read WP:NOTBROKEN. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chaya Gusfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lori Klein.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to The Rockettes. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry. TMProofreader (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Your recent edit history shows that you are again altering redirect links that already go to the intended targets, including intentional links to more specific versions of a title that will need to be fixed again if articles are moved in the future. Your block history and the messages on this talk page show that you are aware that this is deprecated under WP:NOTBROKEN, and that you have been blocked multiple times for behavior including this practice. If this continues, it will result in another block. Dekimasuよ! 01:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. TMProofreader (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a previous one year block for exactly this sort of disruptive editing expired in 2022, you continued with the same pattern of editing over an extended period. For example, in the middle of 2023, see this and this and this in July, this and this in August, this and this in September, this and this in October, among a multitude of other examples. There were far too many of these disruptive edits over an extended period for me to mark, but in early January I reverted 8 such edits that you made over the course of a week at the end of December and the beginning of January, noted that these were reverted because of WP:NOTBROKEN, and gave you another final warning. After apologizing above, you have now continued this again. I am not sure what impels this editing pattern, but given that the previous block was for a year and that you have shown no inclination to stop, I am proceeding with an indefinite block for disruptive editing until it is clear the disruption will not continue. Please feel free to request an unblock when you can show that the block is no longer necessary. Best, Dekimasuよ! 00:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dekimasuよ! 00:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu I was trying to grammatically insert commas after sentences like “In 2024”, for instance. TMProofreader (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most style guides will say that commas are optional in such cases (e.g. MLA), but I am not aware of any specific guidance on that point in our own manual of style. Please note that your edits inserting commas are unrelated to the ones that resulted in your previous yearlong block and the ones mentioned above that resulted in the current block. Dekimasuよ! 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]