User talk:Mr. C.C.

Mr. C.C. is Somewhere

Please be courteous and don't message me templates. Templates are impersonal and for newer editors to learn the policies. I already know them, so if you have a complaint (i.e. suspected vandalism, unsourced content, etc.), please tell me in your own words. Thank you.

The article Lumière (restaurant) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources given for many years.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Zaurus (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I didn't appreciate your comments to my reply to the discussion about the move from The Chicks to Dixie Chicks. Comments like "Spealling is key" is clearly taking the piss. People make mistakes and may have conditions like dyslexia, you should really assume good faith, especially when we've not interacted previously. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: I was civil. I simply pointed out a slight spelling error. By your logic, I no longer have to be civil since we've now interacted. If that's how you want to interact, you go for it. I will continue to be civil. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did point out a spelling mistake but then quite deliberately introduced another spelling mistake sarcastically. That wasn't civil. But no, I'd expect everyone to be civil all the time and I will (as I always have). ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: I don't know what you are talking. I only pointed out a spelling mistake in a civil manner. If you get offended at people helping you, that's a you problem that you need to work on. It's an all too common response which needs to stop. Hope you can work through that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offended at you helping me. I was offended at you writing "Spealling is key" which is clearly a spelling mistake and an attempt to take the mick out of me writing Chics instead of Chicks. It could come across as mocking, and mockery isn't civil. I don't have an issue with people helping, quite the contrary. Is it not obvious how you writing the phrase in bold could have be construed as mockery/taking the piss and therefore uncivil? Thus there isn't an issue for me, however, I don't appreciate (nor do I think anyone else would) having the piss taken out of or of being mocked in replies. Its just not collegial. Anyway I've explained my point and hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: You're assuming I did that on purpose. You know what they say about assuming? Yes, spelling mistakes happen, but when the name of article is right there, you have no excuse. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steven Gilborn, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matlock and Still Standing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm YoungForever. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jupiter's Legacy (TV series), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YoungForever: You pointing me to a page on how to source is condescending and rude considering I've have been editing for 15-years (longer than you). You'd know that if you looked at my user page. Plus it's ironic you reverted my edit when you left another unsourced recurring cast member and guest star. You don't pick and choose what to remove or revert and what not to remove or revert. You've been here long enough to know that. All you had to do was remind me to source it. Sometimes people forget. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never added unsourced content on the article. It is not my fault you did not add a reliable source. A reliable source is needed because otherwise it would be considered to be WP:OR. It doesn't matter how long you been editing. Sometimes veteran editors do not add reliable sources. Your accusations are equally condescending and rude. I wasn't picking and choosing what to remove or revert and what not to remove or revert. As I stated on the revert, it needs a reliable source. FYI, Tenika Davis is reliably sourced, she is just sourced in the Casting section, just like rest of the cast. No other cast members were unsourced that you claimed were unsourced. — YoungForever^(talk) 05:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YoungForever: Fine, I apologize. Just because a "veteran" editor doesn't add a source doesn't mean they don't know how. Plus, you can't say "November 2020" when talking about Tyler Mane being added to the recurring cast. That's not an accurate date. So I went ahead and removed that and changed the wording. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for the tutorial part of the warning. I was using the Twinkle warnings, I didn't write it myself. I hope we can move past this misunderstanding. Anyway, I removed that part aka strikethroughed it. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@YoungForever: I am willing to let bygones be bygones. It's all good. I don't know about you, but the source I used for Tyler Mane being in the recurring characters was the best I could find. It didn't mention any date to when he was announced as a recurring character. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even a reliable source because it gets its information from IMDb as it is stated on the article itself. IMDb is not a reliable source because it is user-based website. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tom Wilson (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roots music.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian scientists by descent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian scientists of Indian descent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian scientists of Japanese descent has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Badshah Khan (wrestler), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature, while entertaining, is a wee bit on the misleading side (no recognisable link to the user name...) Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: Click on "Mr. C.C" and it'll take you to my user page. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that it's still surprising to go from a users who signs as Mr. C.C and end up on a user who edits as Fishhead2100 (and it's also not helpful when attempting pings since you then have to hunt through the signature for the correct username). And, by the way again, looking a this and at your signature just here, there's a link to your talk page and one to your contributions, but not to a user page. Anyway, just a comment. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Food Network (Canadian TV channel) personalities, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chopped.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whose Line Is It Anyway? (American TV series). 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. Amaury • 04:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amaury: Hello, I am not the one being disruptive. IJBall has also been reverting. They, in fact, reverted twice. I only reverted once. Plus, I fixed the incorrect formatting yet I'm the labeled "disruptive." If you're going to warn someone, also warn IJBall. I also mentioned in responses that there has not been a discussion brought up. It has been "claimed" that two other editors said it was fine, but there has been no discussion on the article talk page. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Béla Fleck discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strength in Numbers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jeff B. Davis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yacht Rock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Last night, I noticed that you left this message on my talk page and then deleted it;

"Steve Terreberry's singles were formatted in a table. You are supposed to follow the formatting when adding singles. Instead you completely removed the table. All the edits you did are going to be reverted unless you fix your screw up. As well, you don't need to state in the article where you got the singles from. Keep that in the edit summary. Spotify is not used as a source regardless that you used it to add more singles."

If this was unintentional, just make sure to pay attention to usernames before leaving a message on their talk page. Otherwise, I only came back to the article to see the list formatted like that. Please leave a message on the talk page of ​Walter Görlitz, as he is the one responsible for that formatting. Thank you.

KullyKeemaKa (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KullyKeemaKa: As you clearly see, I reverted because I wrong. My mistake. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to remove that unverified trivial material again; you've been warned that your disruption might lead to a block. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: That means you're edit warring. So I wouldn't do that. Oh and I only reverted once in each instance. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's you harming the integrity of the project. You saw there is a level-4 warning for adding unsourced material: it's basically just vandalism, and I have no qualms about blocking you for it. You reverted only once? Not true, and it doesn't matter. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Adding information is not vandalism just because you reverted it. If you want to see vandalism, patrol the sockpuppets of Jellington. Whoever is behind those accounts, continually makes accounts for the purpose of vandalism. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced information, and fighting over it, is disruption, and you should know that: you've been here long enough. I don't know who or what Jellington is, or how it is relevant here. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: It is relevant because there are people doing nothing but vandalism unlike who you're accusing. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Whataboutism. The trivial material you insert is bad enough already, and without reliable secondary sources it's worse. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad Jellington got brought up. Fishhead2100, please do not tag their (or others') socks on my behalf, or on anyone else's. There are very good reasons we don't tag these accounts, and there is very rarely a reason to override such decisions. I will remove the tags shortly. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: You've been here long enough to know you make a new section. Now, what "very good" reason is that? All sockpuppets of Jellington should be in the category. They've been proven and or confirmed. For your information, I wasn't using the tag checkusers would use. There is no reason to remove them. Oh and nobody else was going to bring up page protection. That was the second time I had to do it. This person is known, so it should take me to get something to be done. For the second time, it's only temporary. Which it should not be. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added my comment to that section because you had mentioned Jellington; the reason in question is linked in blue in my original post. Tags are an administrative tool; we use them when the benefits of recordkeeping outweigh the downside of helping someone document their socking high score. In this case, I am fairly convinced that they don't, and so I don't tag them – and as far as I can tell, most other people who spend a lot of time handling socks in one capacity or another seem to be going the same route. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: By your logic and before I tagged the ones I did, all those accounts didn't need to be tagged either. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Guy's Grocery Games has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Jared Dines performed on stage with Breaking Benjamin, does not make him an associated act. An associated act has to have more than one member in common between them to be considered that. He played what, one show with them? I have been reverted before for trying to do the same thing you are doing. See here Although, maybe you can add that he played live with them on their history section. yawaraey (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yawaraey: Since you've been reverted for doing that, you should take your own advice and do what you told me to do. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following you. And don't just revert because you were reverted, use a policy-, MoS-, or guideline-based reason. Again, not following. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are You serious? Plain reverting now? Stop it! Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: You just happened to see my edits by random chance. You keeping telling yourself that. Everybody does this in infoboxes for bands and artists, but you're the only one who reverts for no reason. When others have reverted, they've at least stated a reason which you couldn't do. So don't revert and stop following my edits. Seriously. Oh and take your own advice and stop reverting. You're reverting because you follow me and are waiting to pounce. This is technically harassment and edit warring. I would stop if I were you. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 07:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a watchlist? I do. Whenever an article is modified, I check what was changed and why. People also link to countries, which goes against WP:OVERLINK. People make lots of errors. I provide valid reasons. Whn you ignore the guidelines in favour of what a few articles you work on do, it's a problem and I will keep reverting any edits that go against them. I would stop ignoring the documentation if I were you. There is no harassment other than your baseless accusations of hounding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: You're edit warring. Stop. It's harassment at this point. I don't put every page I've edited on my watchlist. I don't have an obsessive need to scrutinize everybody's edits. You can't revert someone's edits that are not disruptive. You have yet to point it's where it says it's not allowed. Stop reverting or this will be taken further. I don't know why you have an issue with me. You should take a Wiki break. It would do you some good. Oh and your edits are not good faith when you are continually reverting. I suggest you move as I am trying to do. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You too are edit warring, and to make things worse, you're ignoring guidelines.

I am not following you. Period. WP:3RR makes it clear that reverting disruptive editing is exempt.

What does MOS:STYLERET state about changing styles? Stop applying unnecessary changes you this will be taken further. I do not have an issue with you, but you clearly have an issue with me. I am reverting incorrect and unnecessary edits, nothing more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I must have missed where I said I wasn't edit warring. I just want to move on. Following me to find something to revert is harassment. It's says more than one style is acceptable. I already know that. That's how I do it. You incorrectly reverted. Saying you'll continue to revert is still edit warring. If you don't stop, it will be taken further. You basically incriminated yourself by saying you'd continue you reverting. You shouldn't have done that. Oh and you might want to read WP:Be bold#Be careful since what you're doing is disruptive. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone else out for edit warring without stating the equivalent about ones own edits is essentially denying any wrongdoing on your part.

No, you cannot move on until you explain why you insist on changing the infobox style (and that in other sections) without addressing the guidance given in MOS:STYLERET. You can keep threatening me, but you're the one on thin ice, not me, so read WP:BOOMERANG while you're at it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I clearly stated the reasoning for my edit here if you read all of what I said. More then one style is acceptable. Therefore, you're reverting for no reason. I didn't deny anything. You won't move on and you've clearly stated in the edit summary that you'll continue reverting. Further reverts will lead to something further whether it's me or someone else. Best to let it go and move on. But you don't have better use of your time. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read that. You clearly missed the arbitration committee's statement:

When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.

There is no such substantial reason for the change. You won't acknowledge your error and revert your changes. I want you to improve your approach and the project in general. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: Continually reverting and edit warring is not going to get you what you want. The last bit, take your own advice and look within first. I could say what you said to me makes you, but that wouldn't be considered civil. Any further responses will be removed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 03:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. OK, so he has eleven listed. However, that includes a compilation album, which shouldn't count as a studio album. Therefore I think the lead should go back to stating ten studio albums. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mac Dreamstate, I'm not well versed on Greg Howe. I was listening to a playlist on Spotify and he came up thus I checked out his article. So you can see where I counted eleven. At least you took the time to explain unlike that summary @BrownHairedGirl left when reverting. Go ahead and revert. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 22:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Rather than outright revert, I'll simply edit the discography section to make a more logical distinction between studio and compilation albums—I can see they shouldn't have been lumped together in the first place. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. C.C.: Huh? what did I revert? Diff please. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, seriously? You know exactly. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. C.C.: If I did know I would not be asking.

I do a lot of edits so I dont recall. I don't see any revert by me to Greg Howe. So diff please BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I saw your name and thought you reverted. My mistake. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. C.C.: you pinged me to complain about an edit of mine, then you passive-aggressively refused to post a diff, and you made a bizarre claim to know my mind. A civil editor would make an explicit apology for such antics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:, I admitted my mistake as you can see. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not just a "mistake". There was also your explicit choice to claim that I was lying when I asked for a diff.

Have you ever heard of the word sorry? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:, continuing to go on as you are is not helping matter. Demanding an apology is not going to help matters. Have a good day. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this insight into your manners, or rather the complete lack thereof. I have no patience for the sort of insulting, time-wasting conduct you have displayed here, so please do not ping or message me ever again.

Goodbye. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This message was condescending and out of line. Furthermore, please read WP:PROXYING carefully. The next time you revert back in promotional crap (e.g. "100% natural gum base series, Sugarfree chewing gum, Aspartame free, Biodegradable, No artificial flavors, Including Mastic/Safferon/FRANKINCENSE/WALNUT , Cool and fresh sense, Digestive aid, Soothe symptoms of the common cold and the flu", as well as other marketing material) inserted by an account indefinitely blocked for promotional edits of these brands, I will escalate this to appropriate forums. That edit of yours was entirely inappropriate, particularly coming from a tenured account here. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pikavoom (talk · contribs) You never said anything about a blocked user. So don't threaten people. That's out of line. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 14:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom Oh and mentioning they are blocked would have been quite helpful. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you were aware of the user, because it was clear in the edit history, I am sorry for making assumptions. They were spamming these gum brands in new articles as well. Pikavoom ^Talk 05:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pikavoom It's all good. There was a sockpuppet for awhile on another article on my watchlist. This person made so many accounts. But if sources could be found, they could be added back to the list. But sometimes, that's not always possible. Plus, other entries on the gum list need sourcing. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you spot this particular one again, on specific Iranian brands, file at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rhoda mano. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please stop edit warring and adding unsourced content. You are welcome to use your sandbox, but please stop reverting just to add back unsourced content. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 You don't remove stuff while those tags are in place. That's why they are there. If you do, I'll take it to the proper forum. Enough is enough. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 Again, stop removing things with those tags in place. You're one step from being taken to the proper forum. If you've bothered to look, you'd know that things are being sourced. If that bothers you, I don't know what to tell you. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the unsourced content you continue to add to Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. Much of the unsourced text is about living people, and to continue to add this text back is a BLP violation: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." As well, after adding back unsourced text, you tagged it as "under construction", but then did not edit the article until the next day, and then you only edited a small portion of the text. At the same time, you left the following edit summaries:

• "You don't remove anything while those tags are there".
• "Added In use template to prevent content from being removed while sources are being sought out".
• "It's everybody's responsibility to source."

Your use of two different "under construction" tags appears an attempt to game the system, and intimidate other editors trying to remove your unsourced content. Please make use of your sandbox for test edits, and again, please remove all the unsourced content you added back to the article. Thank you for your understanding. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677 Imagine someone trying to look for sources. Imagine you getting mad over that. It is everybody's responsibility to source. Try being part of the solution and actually look for sources. Before coming at me about content in the article, you should maybe go to those that added it instead of the person who trying to look for sources. Oh and it's not "my" content. Step back and take a breath. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, especially when there are controversial or negative claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing from certain pages (Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling) for persistent edit-warring to insert unsourced and BLP violating material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: .  Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mr. C.C. (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Adding sources as you can see is grounds for being blocked? I have been looking for sources. I never added all that information to begin with. It was added by others. Reverting is not the same thing adding content. But let's ignore that.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hello, Mr. C.C.

Thank you for creating IWC Heavyweight Championship.

User:Slywriter, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Not seeing any independent sourcing to show this title is notable

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Slywriter}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Slywriter (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CC, I saw this - is that an actual requirement? The way I look at it is, if I place a request somewhere, and I'm hoping somebody will sit down and read my request and try to help me, the least I can do is keep an eye on it. Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DrVogel The user who made the request didn't start a formal discussion to reach consensus. It has nothing to do with you. You even removed their request because it was withdrawn. No sure what you're wanting? Why are you patrolling technical requests? You can't fulfill technical requests, correct? If not, don't worry about it. You said your piece when you responded. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 12:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:List of CMLL World Middleweight Champions indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cover NJPW and have contacts in the office, I would know the official name of titles, don't address with that tone. CrazyWalter05 (talk) 10:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyWalter05, if you do indeed have any affiliation with NJPW, that's WP:COI. You have to follow the guidelines set forth. We are not talking about the title itself. It's a list of champions for a particular title. So no, you incorrectly moved the page. The title is correct now. It follows all titles that have a separate list of champions such as.

• List of WWE Champions
• List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions
• List of ROH World Champions

Notice how it says "champions" not "championship?" You don't move articles to an incorrect name. That's common sense. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being a journalist and covering something, is different from working for a promotion. That too would be common sense. CrazyWalter05 (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyWalter05, anybody can "cover" something. That doesn't mean you have "contacts" in the office. What work have you done as a "journalist?" I've wrote for websites in the past too. That doesn't mean a damn thing because they weren't anything in realm of wrestling sites. So peddle that rhetoric elsewhere. I bet the sites you did write for are not reliable. You probably just regurgitate what Dave Meltzer and other notable journalists have spewed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got bylines in places like Huffington Post, Elite Daily, Fansided, and numerous others - while having interviewed President Ohbari, Kevin Kelly, Tetsuya Naito, Rocky Romero, Bad Luck Fale, and others. Keep your attitude and wikipedia self-importance, it's doing well for you. CrazyWalter05 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CrazyWalter05, I've interviewed Gabe Sapolsky and pre-WWE Xavier Woods, that doesn't make me anything special. Considering the shady stuff Elite Daily has done (copyright infringement, sexism, identity theft, pseudonymous publishing), I wouldn't brag about being featured on that site. But we've gone on long enough. The original point of moving pages has been made. Time to move on. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 21:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:BJW Junior Heavyweight Champions (original version)) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you remove the highlighting in your user signature per WP:HIGHLIGHTSIG. Thank you Polyamorph (talk) 08:36, 3 October 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, List of golf courses in British Columbia, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Its completely unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 10:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of golf courses in British Columbia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. scope_creep^Talk 13:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of golf courses in British Columbia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of golf courses in British Columbia 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/List of golf courses in British Columbia 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.

scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I could use some help with editing as I am swamped with work. Things that I need help with are making infoboxes, added articles to disappeared lists, and adding sources to articles, I would be very thankful for any help that I could get. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart, what articles? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 00:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that needs an infobox and lists such as these: List of kidnappings, List of solved missing person cases: post-2000, and List of people who disappeared mysteriously: 1990–present, ect. Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidgoodheart, why do you need my help specifically? There are tens of millions of editors and ones that are into these topics. It's not that I can't help, it's that the topics stated I generally edit, have an interest in, or knowledgeable on. Yes, I understand there is lots to do, but that's just how Wikipedia is. It's a work in progress. Go to WP:CRIME and bring up these said things there and get them on their to-do list. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article NWA Mountain Empire Championship, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NWA Mountain Empire Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article IPW United States Tag Team Championship, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPW United States Tag Team Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help improvements. Thanks you. Plimf (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Plimf, seems like you randomly messaged me to help. Badminton is not an area I edit. WP:BADM is the Wikiproject where you can inquire about getting help with improvements. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 06:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Would love your input on this discussion on timelines in tag team articles. Thanks :) Sekyaw (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you didn't notice, I started an AFD discussion about List of chocolate bar brands at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chocolate bar brands. Thanks. Zach (Talk) 15:06, 4 November 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) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360 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/List of programs broadcast by Sportsnet 360 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.

 // Timothy :: talk  03:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, the "notable events" section in a YYYY in Canadian music article is not meant for listing the release of every individual album. It's for linking to things like awards ceremonies and/or special events (e.g. if somebody stages a big fundraising concert) that aren't already covered off by other sections of the articles — individual album releases go in the "albums set to be released" section and don't need to be double-listed as "notable events" at the same time, and individual musicians' deaths go in a separate deaths section below that rather than being listed as "notable events". You can see that's the format followed by all other years up to 2024, so there's no reason for 2024 to start doing different things than all of the others have done in the past, because it just clutters up the article to repeat the same information two or three times in different sections. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat, it's not just for awards. It's also for notable festivals, artists who haven't released albums in an X amount of years, deaths, and other sorts of things. If you haven an issue with that, start a discussion on the talk page. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 23:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to start a discussion on the talk page just to get the page to follow the same format as every other YYYY in Canadian music article is already following — it would be your job to start a discussion on the talk page to gain a consensus for the page doing any differently than 2023, 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, and on and so forth are doing.
Individual albums that are already listed under "albums set to be released" do not need to be double-listed as events, and deaths that are already listed under "deaths" do not need to be double-listed as events. I didn't say anything about festivals not being listable, but you weren't listing any festivals, and it's rather unlikely that the 2024 edition of any music festival in Canada would get its own standalone article as a separate topic from its base overview article anyway. But note that no other YYYY in Canadian music article, anywhere in the entire series, is double-listing albums in both the "albums" and "events" sections or deaths in both the "deaths" and "events" section — so it's you who needs to gain consensus for 2024 to do any differently, not me who needs to gain consensus for 2024 to be the same as the others. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no need to list album releases as "Notable events" when there's a separate section for them. Look at previous years. PKT(alk) 17:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]