User talk:AGreenSunflower

Hello, I'm Theeverywhereperson. I noticed that you recently removed content from Sebastian Stan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Theeverywhereperson talk here 05:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Edited and added summary. AGreenSunflower (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi AGreenSunflower! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of Sebastian Stan. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Sebastian Stan, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 06:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, will follow your advice. I have also requested the article to be locked and only edited by expert editors. AGreenSunflower (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sebastian Stan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Reverts: . This breaches the three-revert rule. You were against edit warring by Tbhotch above, yet chose to remove this content a fourth time regardless. Toadspike [Talk] 11:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for letting me know. I understand.

As far as I can see, no one mentioned a warning or a three-revert rule, and I followed the steps Tbhotch advised, opening a dispute resolution.

I’m the one trying to keep the article from being edited constantly, and the one seeking dispute resolution and for it to be locked.

I’d like to see the same consequences for everyone involved. AGreenSunflower (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The warning linked to the edit warring policy, of which the three-revert rule is a part. You are the only one who made more than three reverts on that page, so you are the only one who was blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 13:43, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, please do not email me for communications that do not need to be private. Emailing me the exact same message as you posted here is pointless. Toadspike [Talk] 13:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In that same edit warring policy, I read:

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I thought I was adhering to that and, like that page says, it wasn't included in a three-revert rule. As I counted, the other party made fourteen

edits in a day, and opened two discussions.

So maybe no, I don't understand how things work because I read one thing but seems to come with many add-ons that I don't see. AGreenSunflower (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The BLP exception to the 3RR is for "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". Removing information supported by two sources and direct quotes from the subject himself is not covered. Toadspike [Talk] 14:29, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"A series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert."

I did three reverse, and a fourth one that included relevant professional information about a movie. Honestly, if I read that the edit warring page and see these exceptions but somehow they are not applicable in this case, then it all should come with a big warning that it all depends on admins discretion.

If you want to also have an opinion in the subject matter, we can discuss that too. There are no quotes from the subject himself on this. There are two mentions on an article, and his actual quote is I feel like it's really difficult nowadays to be able to have any privacy whatsoever," he said. "It's the one part of my life that I try to keep somewhat for myself, even though it sort of ends up being out there."

It's not a matter of the relationship being real or not (I don't care about that), is a matter of respecting the subject when he says he wants to keep that part of his life to himself. It's been like that in his article for over a year, I don't see why it should change.

I'm done with this because it won't get anywhere.

Bye! AGreenSunflower (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for locking the article.

As I can’t write on the request I made, I ask you here to please consider extending the protection permanently to its current Extended Confirmed Protected level so there is not a repeat of this situation. I’m sure the article will be updated accordingly by administrators when professional news occur.

Thank you. AGreenSunflower (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the purpose of page protection or the role of administrators. Protection is preventative. I have only protected the page long enough so that you, the editor who added the content, and other interested editors can discuss the changes being made. I will not "permanently" protect the page. Admins do not have any editorial role and do not have any special power to update pages. Toadspike [Talk] 13:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Robin Feldman. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 07:27, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

I did a suggested edit adding links between articles, didn’t change anything regarding style. AGreenSunflower (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize, it didn't let me add an additional comment explaining the Manual of Style issue. The particular issue here is MOS:SEAOFBLUE, which suggests against putting links directly next to each other. Apologies if the templated message here came off a little harsh. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 09:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just made sure the links were to the right articles within the context, and is it was a suggested edit too, I missed the how close the edits were to other links.

Thanks for the feedback, I will keep it mind. AGreenSunflower (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies again, it automatically used a somewhat more confrontational template since you'd received other warnings before, but it really doesn't make sense to do that if you haven't been told about the MoS issue. The Manual of Style can be a bit impenetrable, and I certainly wouldn't expect you to know it all before editing - I honestly have no idea why the link suggestion thing suggests links that are contrary to it. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 10:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand.

I have had warnings before around a subject that I don’t even want to touch again, and they’ve been quite unfair when considering all the facts.

At least yours has developed into constructive guidance. I appreciate that, and thank you for it.

I guess the link suggestion tool just automatically looks for words used in other articles, because I have certainly passed suggestions that made no sense in the context of the edition. The tool being “a robot” must be following certain parameters and overlooking the whole style. I’m still learning, so it’s good to now keep this in mind from now on. AGreenSunflower (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Behavior at Sebastian Stan content dispute. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@AGreenSunflower, once other editors have started joining in a discussion, then it needs to remain active until it is closes. If you no longer want to take part, then you could pop a statement on the existing discussion. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the nice reply. I will do that right now. AGreenSunflower (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

May I ask for some guidance on the AN/I above as well, please @Knitsey?

I have expressed several times today that I no longer wish to be involved in the discussion, but that incident was still created and because of it, my request to vanish this account has been rejected.

I created this account to try and fill up the time during a rough patch, but it seems to have been the worst possible decision I could have made. I just really want to be done. AGreenSunflower (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be difficult to navigate for new users. What I would suggest is, give yourself a chance to learn the ropes? I will guarantee that there isn't a single long term editor here that hasn't made a mistake somewhere along the way.

It's obvious you would like to make a diference to the project and I feel like you could be good adition. Making mistakes is never a problem, as long as you learn from those mistakes.

The issue about private lives of wikipedia subjects annoys me slightly, as some people do like to remain as private as they can. We have had many article subjects ask for information to be removed and we usually comply with direct requests where possible. Some people love the minutiae of private lives. Either way, this is mainly a negotiation solution between editors (as long as it complies with poicy).

Why not stick around for a bit longer? I'm sure you might end up enjoying it here.

As for the threads, either wait for them to close or contact an admin in a day or so if nobody else replies to the threads. They will then be archived.

Hope this helps. Knitsey (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words and advice. You’re the first person to reply to me in a helpful, nice and respectful way.

As much as I’ve measured my words and tried to remain polite, I’ve felt every single word I’ve written has been twisted in a weird way. I’ve gone in blind to all of this, following whatever guidance I could find, and I’ve had no help. I don’t even know how to contact an admin properly. Did it once and got told off because I had written the same on an email and on their talk page.

I just want it all gone now. AGreenSunflower (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Wel you might need to wait a little while until the discussion has run its course.

Why not come back in a few days and see if you want to keep editing? I'm not a mentor but I can certainly help with some guidance if you wanted it. Wikipedia:List of administrators and there is a list of official mentors here. Knitsey (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for those links.

I will certainly give this a thought, maybe even log in a do some of those suggested edits because they also help to discover new topics that are sometimes quite interesting.

Would it be ok if I email you for some guidance at some point? AGreenSunflower (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course! Although I would rather you used my talk page if that's OK? Go to my talk page and use Add topic at the bottom (mobile) or Add topic at the top of my page (desk top).

WP:TWA is a bit basic but it's a great place to start and Help:Introduction has some great links. If you end up not bother with WP then I wish you luck. Knitsey (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

These are very helpful.

Thank you for the guidance, and I will use your Talk page if I need any more help. AGreenSunflower (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2026 (UTC)