User talk:DarknessGoth777

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wicked (film series) 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/Wicked (film series) 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 until the discussion has finished.

BOVINEBOY2008 17:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) All-plot articles are not allowed per WP:NOTPLOT and the article needs to significantly incorporate independent perspectives (reviews, analyses, etc.) (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Book cover of Ripples and Waves 2019.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Geniac. Your recent edit(s) to the page Sriti Jha appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Paula Poundstone. Thank you. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Niki Massey, you may be blocked from editing. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails the requirements of WP:NBOOK. Amazon.com is not an acceptable independent source.

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:Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarknessGoth777! 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! Dan arndt (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DarknessGoth777, I just want to make you aware of Wikipedia’s BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (often abbreviated as WP:BRD—do take a read!) Generally, you are encouraged to edit boldy, but if someone reverts your edit you shouldn’t just revert them back, but instead take to the talk page to discuss the changes you think should be made. This BRD principle is the best method we have to avoid edit-warring.

Chocmilk03, I and others would be happy to discuss whether Keri Hulme was an LGBT person on that article’s talk page (Talk:Keri Hulme), but it isn’t appropriate to continue to make the same changes back and forth. Either way, I do want to wish you well in editing Wikipedia! — HTGS (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK I would love to discuss to. I left my reasoning on the talk page for the article. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarknessGoth777. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

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. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Doniago. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The Shining (film) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DarknessGoth777! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Horror film 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 at Talk:Horror film, 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. Belbury (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Super Size Me, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarknessGoth777. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ripples and Waves: A Queer Retelling of Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Philip Wiegratz, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Bullied (2005 film), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) 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. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline 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} 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bullied2005poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently made some good faith edits to Aromanticism that have been reverted.

Please note that the list of identities as it stands on the article is a summary of the most common ones that are independently cited by multiple sources. You added some more novel new emerging terms that are not yet widely used (as acknowledged by the listing on AUREA), so I have added a sentence to that effect that the list is not exhaustive, but the link to the full reference does exist and per the WP:NOTEVERYTHING guidelines, Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete exhaustive listing. Also the edit on the flag stripe definitions was reverted, as per the original creator of the flag, the current definition that is on the article is the cited one of the creator and other sourced secondary references.

Also on a small side note, I noticed that you marked all your edits as minor edits - Wikipedia has a very specific meaning for a minor edit as outlined in the linked article. Raladic (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

you again recently made another unsourced change - the sources referenced in the section all refer to it as Lithromantic - if you want to make a change, please cite reliable sources that back up the change. Raladic (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now this user is doing the same thing on two polyamorous pages, saying they don't fall under LGBTQ... sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Asexuality, you may be blocked from editing. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DarknessGoth777! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very 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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be marking everything except page creation as minor edits. Substantive changes in content like this one or this edit should not be marked as minor. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls 2010 poster.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls 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/Whorrey Potter and the Sorcerer's Balls 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 until the discussion has finished.

DonaldD23 talk to me 22:43, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Superstraight requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super straight. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.----Licks-rocks (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this warning. You can't just impose your views on here. Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarknessGoth777. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bullied (2005 film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sungodtemple. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to White Aryan Resistance have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a source. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 23:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines.

Please only include the most-specific relevant category, not less-specific categories that are parents of the more-specific one. For example, Category:Transphobia subcategory of Category:Anti-LGBT sentiment, so if an article is in "Transphobia" it should not also be in "Anti-LGBT sentiment". I see a bunch of your recent edits do not follow this guideline. Please take a moment to look at them and undo the incorrect ones. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Carrie (novel), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. Donald Albury 13:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HarryDracoDrarry.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarknessGoth777. In this edit at List of gender identities, you removed content from the list, giving as an explanation that Gender non conforming is not a gender identity its a gender expression they are not the same thing. However, the problem is that the content you removed had two citations, both of which support its inclusion. Simply adding your opinion to an edit summary is not sufficient grounds to remove sourced material. The missing content was restored shortly thereafter. However, now you have doubled down, removing it again in this edit, using the identical edit summary. I'm sorry, that's simply not good enough, and verges on edit-warring. I have restored the cited material once again. Please do not remove or replace sourced information based solely on your own opinion about something. If you believe that both of these sources are wrong, your next option is to go to the article Talk page and make your case for removal there. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what the motivation is for your crusade to remove the "old guard leather" community from the history of gay people, but it's distinctly annoying by now, since the gay male "leathermen" were rather well organized at a time when many other aspects of gay and lesbian life in the U.S. were rather disorganized, and when many other groups or identities which are featured on Wikipedia LGBTQ symbols articles and templates were then extremely obscure at best. I would appreciate it if you would take your historical revisionist efforts to some other venue than Wikipedia -- and I doubt that I'm the only one... AnonMoos (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to remove it from gay history. I'm trying to remove the leather flag from LGBT articles because having a leather fetish isn't inherently LGBT. Fetishes aren't LGBT. DarknessGoth777 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain it more clearly in words of one syllable or fewer. THE OLD GUARD LEATHER OR GAY MALE "LEATHERMEN" WERE RATHER WELL ORGANIZED IN THE 1960S when The Mattachine Society and such groups were somewhat fledgeling. You may sneer and despise them as mere "fetishists", and hate their guts for that reason, but to remove their symbols from the Wikipedia LGBTQ symbols articles and templates, while leaving those of groups and identities which were almost completely unknown in the 1960s would be a general travesty, not to mention historical revisionism of the worst type. Now that you know there are well-founded objections to your attempted revisions, for you to continue down your current path might smack of disruptive editing... AnonMoos (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  DMacks (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What caught my eye was the n+1'th time you have been making inappropriate categorization, despite many warnings here and also noted a while ago at WP:AN. And it builds on a pattern of many types of disruption others have noted. Therefore, I have forced a stop to the problem and emphasize how serious we are about your need to follow our guidelines for content and editorial behavior. DMacks (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your next block is probably coming very soon if you continue these behaviors. It will probably be of indefite length, meaning your permission to edit this website will be revoked for good. We don't need your disruption. DMacks (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DarknessGoth has just, once again, added a category unsupported by an article's content here. I would have left them a gentle notice about that until I saw their extensive Talk page history (including warnings I've left them myself). DonIago (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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! DoctorMatt (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hansel and Gretel (opera), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rice porridge. 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) 18:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]