User talk:Flyedit32

Hey Flyedit32, I reverted your edit to the article Elon Musk because the information that you added was at odds with the source material. You wrote in your edit message: just because you don't like a legal settlement or resolution doesn't mean you can deny its conclusion - Elon Musk is now considered (and has been since 2009) a Tesla co-founder, even if he wasn't initially. Correction: Musk was an early investor and board member, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning initiated the Tesla product. From what I understand, the terms of Musk's settlement with Eberhard were not made public, and even if a settlement declared that Eberhard must say Musk is a co-founder (as speculated by Autoblog),^[1] that does not retroactively change the facts of who is a co-founder. To push you in the right direction, maybe you should instead state that after an undisclosed settlement, Eberhard publicly stated that Musk should be considered a co-founder.^[2] That change would be factual, and thus less likely to be reverted. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There’s an rfc regarding List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign on this page and you comments would be much appreciated. Thank you! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I had to switch the lead image back to the portrait version for legal reasons: . I fully agree with you that the landscape version is better, but it is not in the public domain and so cannot be used. FunnyMath (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the landscape version might be in the public domain because it was part of the university's archives, allowing anyone to gain access to the photo during 1962 or 1963. I am not completely sure on that, though. FunnyMath (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• There are many people in the history of the world who have been political conservatives, or who have "run on a conservative platform". That does not automatically make them appropriate to list in this sidebar. Only significant people should be listed, those who have made a impact on conservatism. Cleveland was not one of those. If you think otherwise, the thing to do is not to edit war over his inclusion, but to go to the article talk page and make an argument there that Cleveland should be included on the list. If you convince enough editors so that there is a WP:CONSENSUS to include him, then you can.
  I suggest you also read WP:BRD: when your Bold edit has been Reverted, the next step is to Discuss the disagreement on the talk page, not to edit war. In the meantime, the status quo ante remains in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ~ HAL333 02:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please undo those edits or I'll have to request administrator action. The correct avenue is to discuss the changes on the talk page.~ HAL333 02:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ HAL333 15:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please undo this edit. You made a bold edit and were reverted. Please discuss. I don't want to have to go to ANI again. ~ HAL333 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

HAL333 please see my comment here. I will not self-revert merely for your individual wishes, especially over something so small. BRD is not mandated by Wikipedia policy. Though if other users find it necessary to revert me for valid reason, then I will accept that. And if you want to start an entire talk section over something this insignificant, a single three-letter word, then be my guest. I may even contribute, but I will not initiate it. And if you also want to try and get me banned again over a single three-letter word, be my guest as well. Flyedit32 10:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Oshwah#Follow-up from ANI. ~ HAL333 23:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2000s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drake. 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) 06:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Lindbergh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coachella.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought the sentences were out of order. I might have been wrong, not sure. Ffffrr (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't this logically go from most to least conservative? Why would moderates go before conservatives when the rest of the article is written differently?Island Pelican (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits at Duluth, and thanks for adding back the bit about the state park. I deleted the larger section about the park again, but it was another editor who deleted the section you added back. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

On 2000s stop adding Taylor Swift's picture based on your fan crush for her. it is indeed picture flooding, nobody wants it except you, go seek WP:RfC or it will keep getting reverted and please do not WP:EW. Also there were far more prominent musicians in that era than her, Kayne West, Akon, Lady Gaga and more. But Eminem and Beyoncé are enough, one male and one female representative, a perfect 1:1 ratio. Maybe you shuld take your crush to the 2010s article during which time she indeed reached Eminem and Beyoncé level prominence, but 2000s wasn't her peak, and that picture cannot stay based on your single fan crush. So seek a consensus, or stop. I have assumed WP:AGF for now, and this is not a warning, I see you already however were blocked on february, anyway next time it will be a warn, please do not borderl ine WP:EW. Best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Second warning for your continued WP:Vandal of the article, third time you do so will also be WP:EW for which you were previously blocked. Dilbaggg (talk) 01:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So replace Swift then! (I did so with Underwood.) You can't hijack the section as a lone editor though and focus purely on one of the artists you don't like. Recommend a different artist. Bring it to Talk. Let's discuss. Engage the broader community in this. You said so yourself - "seek a consensus". Just please, contribute in some way other than just issuing baseless reasoning (like "fan crush"/cruft) or threatening blocks. The section needs more photos than just Em and Beyonce, it's massive and filled with nothing but names and text. I'm open to having any artist highlighted but you need to give better reasoning. ~ Flyedit32 09:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of healthy dialogue, consider contributing: Talk:2000s#Music pics. ~ Flyedit32 09:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

When your edit is challenged it is always your responsibility to seek consensus, and no one is adding fancruft on Taylor Swift other than you. Anyway i took the discussion to the talk page. Also your edits are unsourced, this is an encyclopedia, not a fandom, Wikipedia does not acceppt contents without WP:RS. So pelase refrain from adding WP:Original Research contents. Best wshes. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you would use the talk page rather than solely reverting. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please. You, Toa Nidhiki05, are the one changing a longstanding article state. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~ HAL333 22:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please, respect the status quo and discuss. What policy demands that we use a repetitive subtitle? ~ HAL333 22:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Please self-revert your edit to Steve Jobs. You reintroduced two unsourced labels to the first lead sentence, which I reverted. You twice reinserted them, still without sources, despite WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. When challenged, you added a source for an entirely new statement, which is not contentious. But the original material you reinstated remains unsourced and unverifiable. Even if it was sourced, it wouldn't be due, because the bulk of reliable sources clearly don't label him a "mogul", nor an "investor".

Further, in your edit summary, you say the unsourced "investor" label is appropriate because Jobs made an investment in Pixar. That's WP:OR, because a single investment doesn't make someone an investor. DFlhb (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from CL 9 into History of Apple Inc.. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Koeman is Important Athlete of 90s. EditingIsMyHobby (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. ~ Flyedit32 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Kankkunen is WRC Champion in 1991 and 1993, and along with McRae, Sainz, Makkinen, Gronholm, Loeb, Ogier and Rovanpera one of most significant post-Group B WRC Drivers.

Kasparov is the most sucssusfull Chess Player.

Rainey is MotoGP Champion in 1990, 1991 and 1992, and along with Mick Doohan the two most succsesfull MotoGP riders of the 90s, also Max Biaggi in his Category.

I Want talk about it.

P.S: Okay! Biaggi and Dimas is not so significant.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditingIsMyHobby (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)