User talk:Mythical Curse

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mythical Curse, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Top Jim (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cole

Hi there. Please do not keep adding unverified information into the Cheryl Cole article. You may not be aware, but there are official rules surrounding this, and if you continue to insert the sentences I have had to remove again, you may receive a warning for it. There is also a three revert rule which is designed to prevent repeated insertions of either incorrect or unverified information. You may fall foul of this soon if people have to continue removing the things you are inserting. Wikipedia does not do rumours. While this whole sorry situation is still unconfirmed, the various media reports remain rumours. Please just wait until an announcement is made. This is not a warning, this is just a heads up about why I have removed the comment. I will continue to keep an eye on the article, so hopefully you will understand why I am saying this. Best wishes. Sky83 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation re template

What I meant: When you change the parameter from season_name to series_name, it no longer refers to a part of the template, causing the title to disappear from the infobox.Zythe (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtois

Maybe because he was confirmed as an Atletico player last week? Just because Chelsea haven't confirmed it doesn't mean the deal isn't done, they aren't the most important team in the world you know... It's quite obviously done, and if you want proof, here are some pictures: http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2954/courtois2.jpg and http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/1820/courtois.jpg

And here he is training on Sunday: http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/7898/26716310150266811037389.jpg

Believe me now? So yeah, how about you stop changing it and get your facts right. Also I think you owe me an apology for saying things such as 'I hope you are proud of yourself', when it's you who has the wrong information. Thanks. --Summerfield29 (talk) 12:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aguero and £38m.

There is no definitive source for £38m. Some sources are reporting £35m. Surely it's more helpful to point readers to the reports than to make a judgement about which one might be correct? The source you keep trying to put in is just a set of photos from the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail source that I used is much better and goes into details - saying £35m with add-ons to £38m. That, rather helpfully, explains the two different numbers being reported. The reversion that you keep making gets rid of one source (presumably because it's inconvenient) but still leaves a source (The Independent) reporting £35m. Also "thought to be" is in no way encylcopedic. Probably we shouldn't have a figure at all, but at the very least we should be accurately reflecting the reporting of this, not just plumping for one figure and ignoring all sources that don't back that one. Please, take the time to read the references in my version and hopefully you'll see that it's a more accurate account of what has been reported. If you're going to keep on edit warring about this (and I am also guilty here) then I think we should ask a third party. Honestly, though, I'm baffled that you are sticking with £38m on the basis of a single source when a more detailed article in the same newspaper says £35m rising to £38m. Cheers. Maccy69 (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Motor Speedway

I don't understand your point. Formula One is returning to the US, but not to IMS - to a new track in Austin, Texas. The contract for the US Formula One race in Austin runs until 2020. What's the problem? Denisarona (talk) 10:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I read the edit before I reverted it - there's no need for offensive comments. Denisarona (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Did you EVEN look? This is offensive. Another race has ben confirmed, but not at Indianapolis Motor Speedway and the article is about IMS, not Formula One in the US. Denisarona (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, now I can reverse the offensive comment. Did you even read the information on Indianapolis Motor Speedway? The information stated that there wouldn't be a Formula One race at IMS until at least 2021. It didn't say there wouldn't be another Formula One race in the US. Denisarona (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mythical Curse. You have new messages at Vrenator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nicolas Anelka

Thank you for your correction. Happy editing. --Alexchen4836 (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mythical Curse. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
Message added 20:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ged UK 20:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Resistance (2011 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Heinrich Hertz. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this article.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a violation of WP:DATE to change format without a substantial reason unrelated to preference, and without discussion. If you have such a reason, please seek consensus for change on the article's talk page. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Hi. Please do not add unsourced material or original research to articles, as you did with this edit to Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of No Original Research and Verifiability. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. That information has already been removed from that article several times already for this reason. If you wish to add it, then please include a citation with it. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibility to find cites for all the information that others wish to add to articles. I already do so, to a certain degree, as a courtesy, but strictly speaking, if you want to add the material, then you have to include the citation. Not me. As for my edit summaries, the comments were indeed polite the first five times I had to revert that material. The sixth time, I was a bit more critical, which is rather understandable. Nightscream (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Real Hustle episodes

I didn't change the format of the dates and i haven't edited that page since 28th of November 2011. All i did was format the episodes.
Version before me - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Real_Hustle_episodes&oldid=462178718
My Version - http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Real_Hustle_episodes&oldid=462927812

I only did the first two series so that hopefully someone reformatted the rest (which did happened) --Fob Upset (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry i didn't know that. Thanks for reformatting all the dates --Fob Upset (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gris, Spanish artist active in France

For your convenience here is useful information concerning date formats, excerpted from the WP Manual of Style:

Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the US this is month before day; for most others it is day before month. Articles related to Canada may use either format consistently ... If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic. Where an article has shown no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor"

The entire text may be seen here.

Juan Gris has no strong ties to a particular English-speaking country. A glance at the article's edit history reveals consistent use of the current date format since the first appearance of dates there on July 21, 2002 (translation: 21 July 2002). It seems consistent with the cooperative spirit of wikipedia to retain the format preferred by the editors who actually wrote the article. Can you explain your motive in changing it? Ewulp (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for formatting dates according to the style used in any given country makes a kind of sense, but the consensus in wikipedia is for non-interference with existing formats as explained above. If you would like to argue for changing the rules, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers is the proper forum, not Juan Gris. Ewulp (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'season' not 'series'

You'll have to be a little bit more specific in future as to when I've used 'season' instead of 'series' on British articles, but I'll make a mental note to try and avoid doing it again on Wikipedia; cheers. AlligatorSky (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mythical Curse. You have new messages at Ged UK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ged UK 11:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British-English

Hi. I'm sorry I didn't used the British-English date format on Didier Drogba's page. Ever since I use Wikipedia, I used the American date format and had no issues.

Thanks for the tip, I shall keep the British-English date format!

May 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Merlin episodes, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop vandalizing the Merlin pages. I understand that in the UK "series" is used in lieu of "season" but you need to pay attention to context before unilateral changing these pages to use "series". For example, you changed a column heading from "# in season" to "# in series" when there already was a column with the heading "# in series". On the List of Merlin episodes pages, you "corrected" the title of a DVD used as a reference. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 22:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Merlin (series 4). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please cease edit warring on List of Merlin episodes and Merlin (series 4). Regardless of the dialect used within an article, you cannot change 'season' to 'series' when it is the title of a DVD. Likewise, in the context of the table you are editing, the word 'series' is used already with a different meaning. Your changes would have resulted in two columns with the same headings but with different values.

Finally, you are incorrect in asserting that 'season' is not used for British TV shows because non-British viewers of those shows use that word often. Merlin, like Wikipedia, has an international audience and it would behoove you to be less parochial in your world view. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mythical Curse. You have new messages at Djkernen's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

New Discussion Topic

I have opened a new discussion topic at the Merlin (series 4) talk page. Your participation is requested. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:Bite

Where is the vandalism? Tom Pippens (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one before that, by someone else, shows how it's done with "He is known also for having a unibrow (o----o)." without a ref to go with it :) but seriously, that article is suffering vandalism because the lede sucks so much and would upset many of the readers passing by. It's a liverpool red flag to a bull. The user is possibly unhelpful, possibly it could be vandalism, but with the article in it's current state, sigh, it's a magnet for trouble. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter: it wasn't vandalism. Mythical Curse, please re-read WP:VANDALISM and stop handing out such incorrect warnings. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something else: you just moved St James' Park, against the consensus on the talk page, and without even participating in that discussion (which has been going on for quite a while--since 2009). In fact, your ONLY contribution to that talk page is moving it. I'm not going to call that vandalism, but it was totally boneheaded: it's highly disruptive editing with what appears to be a willful disregard of the need for consensus. You may choose not to reply to any of the messages here, but bear in mind, that will only strengthen the relatively low opinion some editors already have of your communication skills. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar

I hope that the recent edit about the fee is agreeable for both of us! Cheers Asl9791 (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joker in other media

Just a general note with regard to WP:ENGVAR. Joker is an American topic, and the American spelling should be used in the related articles. This falls under WP:CONSISTENCY, WP:TIES, and, since the American spellings were already there, WP:RETAIN.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Citizen Kahn

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Citizen Kahn. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Citizen Khan. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Citizen Khan - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. AllyD (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles were created within 4 mins of one another. One or other of them had to be become the main ongoing article; the "Citizen Khan" one was more complete as well as having the correct spelling, so I flagged the "Citizen Kahn" one that you had created - it was nothing personal, just trying to get the best outcome. As it happens, the Redirect that User:Beeblebrox applied is that best outcome, as it is an easy mistyping to make. AllyD (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien articles

Tolkien articles use Oxford English spelling. You don't like it, take it to the talk page. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien articles use OXFORD ENGLISH (as in British English as per OXFORD spellings.) which uses Z GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOTR articles shouldn't be exempt from wiki rules. The s format should be used as it is the standard in British English. Mythical Curse (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth has decreed that Middle-earth articles are in British (Oxford) English. Please read up on it and then revert yourself on Gollum where you have been unnecessarily edit-warring with people who know better. Elizium23 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOTR do follow the English Rules, they use the version of English the original author used, that is OED GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical Curse, instead of reverting back and forth you should join the discussion at the article talk page. Consensus there is currently against your changes so please try to convince the other editors over there. De728631 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MKTO

Hello Mythical Curse,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged MKTO for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 04:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Σ's talk page. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 22:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mata

Hello. You may well be right, at least for domestic transfers. I've suffered before when my club was signing a player from abroad. The sellers announced his definitive transfer on their website several days before my club announced him signed even subject to international clearance, and that took more days to come through. They might have filled in all the forms their end, but it didn't make the transfer done. But I don't think it does any harm to wait until the buying club makes the formal announcement, preferably with scarf raised and Mr Mata claiming that he was a United fan as a child. If it's stopped another string of edit requests based on people reading far too much into Mr Mourinho's press conference, then I'll live with a bit of being economical with the truth. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Titanfall page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Avengers: Age of Ultron, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Andrew Garfield does not have an edit summary. Thank you.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! -- DonIago (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mythical Curse. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mythical Curse. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]