User talk:Kala7992

I have undone your changes to His Dark Materials. You may want to read MOS:REFPUNCT. Bazza (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have made punctatuation and the information I changed was correct, I will simply undo your undo and if you so wish you can add the correct ounctuation yourself. The release date is correct and the article is a verifiable source as far as im concerned Kala7992 (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You moved the references before the punctuation, which is against the requirement at MOS:REFPUNCT. Note that edit warring (which is what you will be doing if you reinstate your edits, can get you blocked. You should continue to do what you have started here and discuss the issues on the article's talk page. Bazza (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand what your issue is, why should the new release date not be there if its been publically announced? Since you're so much better at editing than I am, why cant you correct whatever simple mistake ive made, ive literally done most of the work by providing the article title, link and dates associated with it Kala7992 (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You moved references inside punctuation, which contravenes MOS:REFPUNCT. And your specific dates contravene WP:CRYSTALBALL, in particular Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. I see you are a new user, so might want to step back from being so confrontational and have a read of WP:BRD. You may get a formal welcome from someone else later, which will also point you to some good guidance for editing. Meanwhile, if you are certain that the date must be included in the opening paragraphs of the article, then you will need to discuss it on the article's talk page before editing further. Bazza (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have started the discussion I mentioned above. Bazza (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The article should be as you originally intended, I dont have time to fuss over this anymore Kala7992 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Invisiboy42293 Spiderwinebottle this Andy the Grump dude is starting to get on my nerves. None of his claims made any sense and you and the spidey user have debunked his claims with numerous sources of evidence. I say we need to take action and ban him because he is simply censoring information at this point. As it currently stands ive undid Andys undo, could you please help me by bringing in other editors and asking admin to ban Andy for edit warring? Kala7992 (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Andy the Grump keeps on edit warring and undoing the changes of editors who have included the alleged Adam Levine's affairs, reported widely by verifiable sources. May you please take action against this user and ban him, because the editorial consensus is that the information is worth reporting in the articles and his reversing of people's edits is causing issues? Kala7992 (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Adam Levine) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 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 ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I was on my way here to implement a site-wide block for a longer period. I will not modify 331dot's block, but be warned that if you make any more personal attacks on any editors, you will be blocked from editing across the project. WP:NPA is policy, and it is not limited to profane abuse - I'd strongly advise you to read it. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the use of profanity, that will cease to happen from now on. I am done with Adam Levine's page and have been blocked anyways. Hopefully I can move on without this affecting my ability to edit non-controversial articles without violating any policy Kala7992 (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not just profanities that are forbidden - you may not use insults of any kind, even calling someone a loser or similar is a violation of that policy. I strongly urge all new editors to read it and take it to heart - it is enforced vigorously. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of biggest box-office bombs. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. - wolf 19:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Added note

if you realized the amount of work Betty Logan has put into that article, both building and maintaining it, you'd realize how foolish you look calling them "stupid" and "biased" (which is an WP:NPA vio, something you were specifically warned about after your last edit-warring block). The wisest course of action for you now would be to apologize for those remarks, desist from further edit-warring, and engage others on the article talk page about your concerns, or just let it be and move on. (jmho) - wolf 19:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

i didnt call Betty Logan "stupid" but her reasoning, it is a confirmed fact that Shazam 2 is a bomb and bombed harder than many other entries on the list, i challenged the logic of that decision, i refuse to apologize Kala7992 (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The apology is between you and Betty Logan. The edit warring is now between you and whichever admin handles the AN/EW report. - wolf 20:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for edit warring. 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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@PhilKnight can you at least just block me from editing that particular article without a general edit ban? Kala7992 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, you are blocked from List of biggest box-office bombs for a month, but are free to edit the talk page and other articles. PhilKnight (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Grillo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Lotus. 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) 06:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to List of Illumination productions, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Indagate (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

My bad I didn't know about this feature Kala7992 (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Boys season 4 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. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

User 120.61.22.222 is edit-warring and has reverted users' edits and removed the citations over 3 times, please can you block him? That user is simply removing the correct info about the new episode's title change proven with sources and the episode title listing on Prime Video Kala7992 (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I do not block other editors. I simply warned you, as you performed three reverts within 24-hours (which were related to my own edits), meaning you were potentially close to violating WP:3RR. If you want to report an editor for edit-warring, you need to visit WP:AN3. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Star Wars: Skeleton Crew, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. adamstom97 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Howdy. I have live coverage of the US Senate proceedings. They haven't voted 'yet' on Ratcliffe's confirmation. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes they have, it is literally on the news: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5098721-senate-confirms-john-ratcliffe-cia-director/ Kala7992 (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kala7992! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Edward Coristine and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. The term has clearly been the subject of a dispute Doug Weller talk 08:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't change the meaning of the article I literally just tidied it up Kala7992 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

No, you changed "worker" to "engineer" and that's been disputed in the last few days, see the history. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I added that because the word 'engineer' was already used in the article Kala7992 (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. But that is not a "minor edit". Doug Weller talk 10:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I added that because the word 'engineer' was already used in the article Kala7992 (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to The Electric State has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Hi, Imdb and Netflix are copyright protected. Please do not copy directly from source. Knitsey (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Knitsey

Apologies for the late reply to your warning. At the time, I didn’t realize that sourcing content directly from IMDb and Netflix was copyright-protected and not allowed. I understand the policy now and will make sure to never repeat the issue again. Kala7992 (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Avengers: Doomsday, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You were the one who started edit warring by undoing my edit multiple times and claiming there was consensus without proof Kala7992 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

All of the editors working on the article have accepted this information for months. You deciding now that you don't like it, with no consensus for a change, is not good enough. Stop edit warring and wait for consensus at the talk page before continuing to edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You have still not shown me anywhere where it says he is a reliable source, he has gotten many things wrong in the past and that is a fact. Also you started edit warring, you were the first one to undo an edit which I made, so don't accuse me of edit warring when you keep sabotaging my edit. Kala7992 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

find consensus before getting bold in the face of established content. cut out the warring. BarntToust 23:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, I do not see any consensus anywhere that Sneider is a reliable source, so it is better not to include it. Kala7992 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Avengers: Doomsday. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kala7992 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: ). Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I already stopped being involved in that page's edit ages ago leave me alone Kala7992 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Also the other user started edit warring with me first by undoing my edit, I stopped editing on that page and gave in so why are you still trying to get me banned? I stopped editing that article Kala7992 (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Belbury. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 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. Please don't delete reports like this; if you disagree with a report made against you, you should post a response to it on that page. Belbury (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I stopped editing on that article and conceded, why is a report against me necessary? Also I was not the one who started edit warring because by the user Adamstom.97 reverted my edits over and over again. I stopped editing on that article, and just want to be left alone. Once I saw the consensus on the talk page I stopped editing. Kala7992 (talk) 09:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Good to hear it, that sounds like the correct thing to have done. You should say this at the noticeboard. It's up to Wikipedia admins whether to close a report, not the user being reported. Belbury (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I dont know how to do that Kala7992 (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mickey Rourke, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mohammed Sinwar. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.

• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. "eleminated" does not comply with WP:NPOV 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

What is 'disruptive' about my editing? You don't even mention anything. The term 'eliminated' was the term used in news articles to describe what happened to Sinwar, I simply used the term in the sources. What is the issue?? Kala7992 (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You've been doing the "eleminated" edit multiple times and got reverted for it for the fact that it isn't neutral wording. See WP:WORDSTOWATCH 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kala7992 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: ). Thank you. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 14:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

In any unblock request, I'd like to see a detailed explanation of what changed since the last time you promised not to continue, how three previous edit warring blocks and all the warnings didn't prevent yet another report with a huge list of edit warring diffs and how anything would be different if you encountered a similar situation in a few months. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kala7992 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have reflected and completely changed and will not engage in any disputes with other users. I pledge to never edit war again and only edit non-contentious topics which will not lead to any disagreement. I will abide strictly be Wikipedia policies from now on.

I sincerely apologize for my past harmful and disruptive behavior, and I vow that if unblocked I will only edit non-contentious topics from now on and avoid any disputes to strictly abide by Wikipedia policy. I have taken the time to reflect on my harmful actions and mistakes and familiarize myself with the relevant Wikipedia policies I had failed to read on and violated in the past. I acknowledge that in the past I have violated Wikipedia Policy by edit-warring at least 4 times. As a result, if I am unblocked I promise that I will abide strictly by the 3RR rule and never revert more than once at most before taking the dispute to the talk page.

I have read WP: Edit-warring to educate myself on the meaning of 'edit warring' and what constitutes edit warring through familiarizing myself with the 3 revert rule by reading this passage: "The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior" (Wikipedia:Edit warring)

I have also read on how to avoid an edit war, particularly WP:AVOIDEDITWAR: "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute...Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may conclude the same and do it (without prompting), which would then demonstrate consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting. The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars" (Wikipedia:Edit warring#How to avoid an edit war)

- I have educated myself on these rules on edit-warring which I have failed to do in the past so that I make sure that I no longer edit war ever again and discern the boundaries of editing on Wikipedia to avoid any issues in the future so that if I am given the chance to edit again I am editing strictly according to policy.

I have taken the time to reflect on my mistakes and how I mishandled editing by reverting edits instead of confining it solely to the talk page. However, from now on I will cease any such activity and only make edits where no dispute could possibly arise. If I am fortunate enough to be unblocked I will only make small constructive edits from now on.

I have also created a plan for myself in case anything happens which is if I make a revert once and the revert is changed again I IMMEDIATELY cease all reverting and take the issue to the talk page, and strictly follow the 3RR. However, I will actively seek to minimize the possibility of any reverts by sticking to non-controversial minor edits and avoiding changes which could lead to disputes or disagreements with any other editors. My attitude has shifted and I am not concerned with winning any dispute.

If given the chance to edit again my goal will be to benefit the platform and its users whilst being harmonious with other editors to ensure stability

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you with an agreed WP:1RR restriction. Welcome back. PhilKnight (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight Thank you very much for accepting my unblock request I deeply appreciate your generosity and I promise to use my privileges responsibly. Have a nice day! Kala7992 (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The whole url is not needed when linking to another page on Wikipedia, I fixed this. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

So you didn't educate yourself after the last promise to not edit war? I'm not trying to hassle you, I'm just trying to understand what has changed. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for failing to in the past, but this time I have taken the time to properly read the rules and policies on edit-warring (the article on edit-warring) and will avoid all reverts going forward. If I get the chance to ever edit again I will only make edits which won't result in any argument and will not revert edits from now on to avoid any issues. Kala7992 (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: @331dot: Checking in on the status of my unblock request since it has been 6 days since I have submitted it. Kala7992 (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please be patient, we are volunteers. There are many waiting for action. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd be fine with anyone unblocking without asking me, but it may take a while until someone processing CAT:RFU comes here, reviews the request and makes a decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Kala7992: - how do you feel about an unblock with a WP:1RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: I am completely happy with that, I'd be very grateful if I got that chance Kala7992 (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: - how do you feel about an unblock here with a 1RR restriction? PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, as I have filed two ANI reports on Kala's editing behavior, I am concerned about if they will genuinely abide by such a restriction, though I will leave it up to your discretion. I do want to point out that Kala has used AI before to get description of Wikipedia policies, such as using ChatGPT in this edit summary from their most recent edit warring last month. I do not have high hopes that much will change to prevent another incident from the last few times, though the restriction may be helpful. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Trailblazer101 I acknowledge the isolated usage of ChatGPT that one instance to make policy arguments was a substantial misstep on my part. However, that was an isolated incident for that day and if unblocked I will abide strictly by the 1RR rule and the policies on edit-warring which I have taken the time to read to avoid any disputes, so there will be no more incidents going forward. Kala7992 (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate the response and your dedication to improving. All I can do now is take you at your word, and I hope you will do good work. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 06:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:56, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Kala7992 (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Kala7992 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Important: I moved my explanation to my talk page instead of the draft's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Tom_and_Jerry:_Forbidden_Compass) to not interfere with the draft. I removed it from the draft's talk page since it is the wrong place for it and have reposted it here.

I made a mistake, I did 3 reverts thinking I added something incorrectly, since I did not know others could edit on a draft. I created a draft on the same movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_and_Jerry:_Forbidden_Compass_(2025), I thought I created this one and I was confused and thought I had copied and pasted and changed something I wasn't meant to myself. I undid my reverts so the edits of the other editors have been fully restored. I apologize for what I did since I am under 1RR restriction.

@PhilKnight: I accidentally made a mistake due to not realizing other editors could and have edited a draft which I thought was my own (I made a draft of the same article) and undid my accidental reverts. I mixed up the draft I made (link above) with this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tom_and_Jerry:_Forbidden_Compass and for that I sincerely apologize. I wanted to tag you to let you know and take full accountability. This is my first time trying to create an article and was unaware that other editors could edit a draft. I mistook this article draft as my own since it is on the same movie. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Kala7992 (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MCE89 was:

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Feel free to add any of this content to the earlier draft at Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass.

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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

MCE89 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, at the time of creation I was unaware there was already a draft article on the same film. Only if that one is not approved since it used IMDb as a source which is not allowed, would you be able to review mine again? Kala7992 (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries at all, easy mistake to make! What I would suggest is that you merge the contents of your draft into Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass, since that one is at the correct title. You can do this by just copy-pasting any sections where you think your draft is the better version into the other draft. Since you are the only author you don't strictly need to follow the attribution requirements of WP:CWW, but you can optionally use an edit summary like Content in this edit is copied from the Wikipedia page at [[Draft:Tom and Jerry: Forbidden Compass (2025)]]; see its history for attribution.. Once you think it's ready, you can then submit the other draft for review again. Let me know if that's at all unclear. MCE89 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The thing is I am under a 1RR restriction, so I need to be very careful on how I edit the other draft. Kala7992 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Merging your draft into the other one shouldn't require any reverting, but if you're concerned you could always start a discussion on the talk page first to see if any of the other editors have objections to merging the drafts. MCE89 (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Kala7992! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MCE89 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)