User talk:Lordjoshua420

Welcome!

Hello, Lordjoshua420, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! 04:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Winning the title on her 22nd birthday

Why is this pertinent to the intro? Please read WP:LEAD, it's meant to summarize, not fill with trivia. Also, please use punctuation.LM2000 (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section on Talk:Paige (wrestler). The consensus seems to be going towards removing mentions of her birthday from the lead. Please chime in there, and if/when this bit is removed do not edit war.LM2000 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it be removed. Its a fact about her that she won her 2nd title beating AJ on her birthday at SummerSlam. And what consensus. Wiki pages are fan made pages. If the facts are accurate why remove them

They're not fan made pages, they're encyclopedia entries. Facts are fine, but just because something is true doesn't mean it should be included. Her birthday is already mentioned in the article in another place besides the lead The lead itself is supposed to summarize, not go into excessive detail. The fact that her birthday was the same day as SummerSlam is silly trivia.LM2000 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If its going to be mentioned that she is in her 2nd reign as champion I dont see the problem of mentioning that she won the title on her 22nd birthday. Whats the big deal. and yes Wiki pages are fan made encyclopedia pages. If they were not fan made pages then we would not be able to edit them.. Anyway I don't see why this is such a big deal for everyone. What I added to the page is fact. I didn't add it to mess with the entry like a lot of people do. I added it because it's a fact.

Articles need to be written in a neutral tone, so they should not read like fan pages. Simply being a fact isn't enough of a reason to include it in the article. It's also true that she wore red attire at SummerSlam but we don't put that in the lead... or even in the article at all.LM2000 (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want it there fine. Its not worth arguing over. I just thought it was an interesting fact that should be included.

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry IDK why the Ref was not saving. Always happens when I'm on my phone. added ref to Harry Potter book series by JK Rowling ]]

Your recent editing history at Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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.
You have already violated 3RR. I strongly suggest you join the discussion at Talk:Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_(film)#Differences_from_the_book instead of reverting again. Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in an editing war. I'm posting accurate information and sourcing my edits. http://blog.mysanantonio.com/dvd/2005/11/harry-potter-the-goblet-of-fire-book-to-film-comparison/.. I don't understand what I'm not doing correctly. Why are my edits be reverted. And why am I getting blocked and not the person who keeps reverting my edits. I noticed the first time that my edit was not sourced. I corrected that and added an accurate source and the information was accurate. Please tell me what I may not be doing properly. I am new at this and am still learning. I understand that my edits must be sourced and I have provided one. Also the edit is of accurate information. It is also not something I added just to add something. It is a significant difference. Thank you again for your time and patience lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I'd recommend reviewing WP:BRD. While it's not strictly policy, many editors consider it best practice to follow a philosophy of "Bold-Revert-Discuss", which is to say that if you make an edit and it is reverted, than you should immediately move to discuss the edit rather than trying to push it through again. The warning Betty provided is not a notification that you are being blocked, but rather an advisory that you are edit-warring by continuing to push through your edit after multiple editors have reverted you, and that if you persist in doing so then you may be blocked.

For the record, edit-warring is edit-warring even if your changes are "correct" and in compliance with policy. About the only time it's okay to keep pushing your changes through is when you're undoing explicit vandalism or other obvious disruptive editing. If there's even a question then it's best to err on the side of caution.

As there's now a discussion at the article's Talk page I would recommend holding off on any further edits to the article until there's a consensus one way or another. Hope this helps. DonIago (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does thank you lordjoshua420 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]