User talk:Atomic Meltdown

Hello. Fill free to leave any questions for me. I may not have time to respond to them because I do have a life and do no not respond to them quickly as other editors. Anyways, be kind and once your done. Take care.

Welcome!

Hello, Atomic Meltdown! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 05:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Atomic Meltdown, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Atomic Meltdown! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverting

Please read WP:REVEXP and WP:ROWN. You, yourself, have said that Wikipedia is "a collaborative site". You have to let others edit (especially if they are more experienced). It is understandable to make some changes (even then, you should give an edit summary), but you would have to have a valid reason for completely reverting a good faith edit by a registered (not to mention a Veteran) editor. That is considered disruptive. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Musdan, you really should explain your edits more often (particularly through edit summaries and talk pages). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Musdan77. I noticed that you recently removed some content without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Musdan77 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from J. K. Simmons. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Musdan77 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You're still doing the same shit. Either you didn't read what I wrote above or you just ignored it -- which is the wrong road to go down if you don't want to be blocked. If this is "a collaborative site", you need to work with other editors (and discuss with them).

Since you won't give an explanation for your changes, here is a complete explanation of why they're incorrect:

1. Television credits go in the Television table -- clear and simple.
2. You removed maintenance templates -- a big no no (see above).
3. "Post-production" and "Filming": these are not titles so they should not be italicized, and just "Post-production" doesn't really mean anything. That's just a term. To give a proper description, it would need "In" before it.
4. You also broke the Film table
5. "Television special" is redundant since we know that the table is for Television. -- only "Special"
6. The section is called "Awards and nominations" because that's what the list is. "Accolades" would be for a prose section.
7. The Central Ohio Film Critics Association page was deleted so it is not notable (and unsourced)
8. The piped links I changed to accurate direct links. A piped link should be explicit and relevant -- meaning something that is linked should not say one thing and be piped to something else (WP:PIPELINK).

--Musdan77 (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I gave you time to respond, but still nothing. I see on your user page that it says, "This user is peaceful", but your actions are anything but... It also says that you "have a life outside editing". It sure doesn't seem like it. It seems that your ambition is to cause as much trouble with other editors as possible.

Here is my response to your edit summary (which should have been put here in the first place):

1. "some of those awards are updates" I don't see any "updates". I see some unsourced content added (which is unacceptable). And you could have added those "updates" in a separate edit and they probably wouldn't have been removed.
2. "never put _ this to link a page" At first I couldn't understand what that meant. Those underscores don't hurt anything. They don't affect the page at all. If you want to remove them you can, but there's certainly no reason to revert the edit because of it. (Did you read WP:ROWN like I asked?)
3. "you don't need a ref for a uncredited role (that's just dumb)" Not putting a ref. for an uncredited role is "dumb" (especially for a WP:BLP). Everything should be verifiable -- but especially a claim such as that. I could have just removed those instead of tagging, but I prefer to tag - to give someone a chance to cite it first.

The main thing is that you need to understand (an respect) the fact that more experienced editors know more about the proper way to edit (and how not to) and interact with other editors. When you're willing to listen to and learn from them (and get along with all editors), then you will be much less likely to keep receiving warnings (and risk being blocked), and things will be more "peaceful" for everyone. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oscar chagnes

Hi there. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the list, please note that most of the lists you edited were featured lists. If you want to make a significant change, please ask other users who have been contributed to the articles for input.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research VERY CLOSELY. Also listen to what Musdan77 has said here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Before editing please ask for consensus

This is once again an FILM awards ceremony. This is not MUSIC awards ceremony. The tables should reflect roles and content based on the context of film awards. If you seriously want to make changes ask Giants2006 or Neelix.

Before making changes. Please discuss with a group and ask for consensus from the people who mostly contribute to the article.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at 86th Academy Awards shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

Atomic, you need to listen to messages others have been leaving here on your talk page. If you'd like to change the layout of an awards page, establish WP:Consensus on the article's talk page. In some cases, consider filing WP:Requests for comment. Edit warring isn't going to help you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was just really stressed out. (Atomic Meltdown (talk))

Awards Pages

You keep undoing my insertion of times in the info boxes of award shows. If they have not been included until now, that's wrong. a person wants to see the time immediately instead of having to read the whole article. That's the whole point of info boxes. please atop undoing my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavi333 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015, again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jon Stewart. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Jon Stewart legally changed his last name to Stewart. Your phrasing implies otherwise. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of awards and nominations received by Seth MacFarlane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critics' Choice Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for intentionally providing false citations. By the time I had checked four of your citations to films for the J. K. Simmons article, I had already found three failures to even mention Simmons in the citation.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Why? The citations were accurate. And also I have never done anything bad on wikipedia. I've never vandalize any page or anything like that, I've created pages, reverted vandalzing, and added updated material. I did the same to michael Keaton' award page, you reverted the whole page without helping by adding ref and I found placed all those references. I shouldn't be blocked indefinite for something that I know is right. Besides it's the filmograhy table, they aren't really supposed to have any refs compared to other actors filmographies. I don't know what else to say other an unblock me for something that I tried to do. (Atomic Meltdown (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC))}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 06:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)