User talk:YouCanDoBetter: Difference between revisions

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

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.

SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 16 September 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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This is, in actuality, a vandalism campaign by a rogue user, and is certainly not a mere case of disruptive editing. Whatever you want to call it, it's sabotage, it's hate-based, and if someone else can effectively deal with it, then do it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the contributions of the /64 range (which is all the same person) and I'm afraid I don't understand how for instance changing "black comedy" to "dark comedy" is "sabotage" or "hate-based". Our article Black comedy begins "Black comedy, also known as dark comedy, morbid humor, or gallows humor, is a style of comedy that..", so "dark comedy" is apparently considered an option at least by some. Is it because of these edit summaries that you call it hate-based? That seems a bit of a stretch. Differences of opinion are not vandalism. Bishonen | tålk 11:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

If you're going to label trolling "difference of opinion", we're not having a dialogue here. I'll stay out of editing these pages, if that makes it easier. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to cite sources for summarizing the reviews being mixed or the film being a commercial flop when it is verified in the article. And your removal of "certain" from "certain polls" lends the impression that it's beyond just the few polls that were cited. But if you're fine diminishing the quality of the article, for whatever purpose... all the while dismissing the effort another editor puts into explaining their actions... have at it. I'll save my emotions for a worthier avenue. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 04:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the reviews being mixed is verified in the article, it would need to be a substantial percentage to qualify as mixed. You haven't explained how it's mixed yet. Almost all films that are considered to have a positive, unmixed reception have well-over two bad reviews. If it's mentioned elsewhere in the body that it was actually mixed, and not just some bad reviews, point to it and I'll back off. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're accusing me of "emotionality" because I specified how many polls are actually cited? Lmao 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources for the claim that it has been ranked as such in polls? Apart from the three polls themselves?? Youre a total hypocrite. Leave me alone. You can

Easy, skipper. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao Some wikipedian 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have undid your edit here because I'm not sure what "end credits based on tombstones" you are referring to? The cast list is directly based on the end credits as you can see here. Mike Allen 14:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal to me, but the way I was taught is basing the order on the individual credit slides (sometimes referred to as "tombstone credits") before the scroll. I don't know if there's a policy either way as to which takes precedence, so I'm not pushing for it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, but until then I'm good with keeping as is.

I’m not quite sure why you keep adding Jazz as a genre. The AllMusic review doesn’t state jazz anywhere in the review. I’m assuming you’re adding jazz because it’s listed under Genres right below Release Date and Duration. That is not what we follow per Template:Infobox album states — The field should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article. Jazz is not stated as a genre in the body of the article, so please refrain from adding it back unless you find a reliable source that actually calls the album a jazz album. Pillowdelight (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted on Allmusic. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi YouCanDoBetter! Please don't

When it comes to signing your comments, you may find the "Discussion tools" feature useful. It adds a "Reply" button and it automatically signs your comments. You can enable that in your Preferences > Beta features > Discussion tools. I hope that helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great job trimming Curtis Hanson. I was planning to what you did. I couldn't ask for a better follow up. I was planning to do the same

I have to disagree with the trim you gave The Bedroom Window. Though. I think you over trimmed it. Anyways let me know if you intent to pursue the article or would you like I can continue pasting relevant information to it and let you do the rest?

Thanks. Filmman3000 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step aside and let you take the lead. I may help out and trim some later, but you're doing a good job. I'll have to look at The Bedroom Window again at some point, maybe I did over-trim it. Thanks for the heads-up. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I re-added a trimmed version of what I had stamped. I will let you know or you will notice my next load. Filmman3000 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I dropped the new load. Come check it out and take the lead. Filmman3000 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Filmman. When I get a chance I'll take a look. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ...Is It Something I Said?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Mooney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]