User talk:Loytra

Please don't template me! Everybody makes mistakes, and this user finds user warning templates impersonal and disrespectful. If there's something you'd like to say, please take a moment to write a comment below in your own words.

Hi RoadSmasher420! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Teen Vogue, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. DanCherek (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoadSmasher420! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Question about closing move requests, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Triangle Strategy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 20#Triangle Strategy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page North Queensland First, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To better explain there's an ongoing effort to try and fix up a lot of the infoboxes across the project for character articles. A lot of them have tended to get...pretty bad, to the point the boxes go deep into the articles themselves and push even images down past their intended usage, with the same reasoning you mentioned: other article did it, so this should be too. It's definitely not a case of trying to step on anyone's toes, just keep the infobox to the basic info so people can understand a character a glance.-- Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit, I didn't see this, sorry! I just left an explanation on the Pauline talk page outlining my thought process.

Don't worry, I know you're not trying to step on my toes or anything. I completely understand your reasoning and very much appreciate your efforts to improve these pages!

(Tagging you in case you miss this; User: Kung Fu Man)

Loytra (talk) Loytra (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the Sonic stuff was carefully created a certain way because there's so many things simply called Sonic the Hedgehog - the 16-bit game, the 8-bit game, the 2006 game, the character itself, etc. if you wish to change things, please discuss a talk page discussion somewhere, as your recent edits keep on upsetting that carefully worded balance. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry lol. I should definitely be less assertive; I understand it's against policy to reinstate reverted edits, too. Thank you for the explanation. Loytra (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, I totally get it. Any other franchise and you'd probably be on to something. But Sega was so weird about naming some Sonic stuff that it's one of those things where the more you think about it, the more complications arise. The current set up may not be perfect...but changing it needs to be done carefully or more issues arise in the process. Sergecross73 msg me 01:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pac-Man Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DLC. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. 331dot (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your reversion to my edit in the DeSantis article.

"Dejection" is a psychological condition.

According to Dictionary.com: Dejected Definition & Meaning ...depressed in spirits; disheartened;low-spirited: The dejected expression on the face of the loser spoiled my victory.

In other words, it is a human condition, a mood. It can be treated in serious cases with mood elevators or counseling. Our cousins, the greater or lesser apes, might suffer from the same or similar feelings. But organizations do not have feelings. They cannot be "dejected."

"Dysfunction", according to Merriam-Webster, is defined as: "The meaning of DYSFUNCTION is impaired or abnormal functioning."

In other words, it could be a human condition, as in, say, an inappropriate response to a stressful situation whereby i.e., a negative response while driving to seeing a vehicle in your path could be to close your eyes, rather than braking or steering around a potential collision, is "dysfunctional." If an organization responsible for intervening in a crisis situation, say by appropriately distributing available vaccines to ameliorate an epidemic is not accomplished, the organization is by definition "dysfunctional."

I expect English might not be your prime language, and if that is the case, you might exercise more care before reverting in the future.

This is your talk page, so feel free to ignore this friendly advice, and erase these comments.

Thank you, Activist (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I actually undid your edit because you accidentally wrote "Ei" at the very top of the article and I assumed it was simply an act of vandalism. After I realised your edit contained more than just that, I went back and realised you corrected "dejected" from "dysfunctional", and simply redid that myself. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Loytra (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! CT55555(talk) 12:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bit patronizing, no? Loytra (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Magic (supernatural). 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. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors disagree that the tag is needed. That's a consensus against you. Go tilt at a different windmill. Skyerise (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And fix your damn signature. Signing with your old user name appears to be an attempt to confuse other editors. And new talk page sections should be at the bottom of the page. You can't expect anyone to find your comment if you are both burying it in a 2 year old discussion and signing it with a different user name. And you will be reported for edit-warring and probably blocked if you put the tag back again. That's disruptive editing when two editors oppose you. Skyerise (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? I signed with my old signature when I had my old username. Pretty goddamn cheap of you to accuse me of acting in bad faith over quite literally nothing.

Editors like you are what discourages people from using this site.

@Skyerise; tagging you so you actually see this. Loytra (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever.... I've got an historic sockpuppet, some years running now. Likes to annoy me by tagging magic-related articles with undeserved tags. But that's just to start. Then they progress to edit warring over the tags and finally to vandalizing the article. If you're really here to build an encyclopedia, probably best to avoid looking like a WP:DUCK. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 5 September 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great editing when it came to Franco Cozzo after he died! 106.70.91.181 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it! 😊 Loytra (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Les Clark, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hollywood and Inbetweener.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sorry, but you reason for reverting me there is nonsense. You can't claim that a bad quality picture of 0.14 Megapixels is better than a good quality one of 11.25 Megapixels. My replacement is nearly 100 times bigger (yes, hundred!), and it is not over-processed and oversaturated like the old one. Yann (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Loytra. I took the liberty of fixing up your 'link' to your edit being reverted at Donald Trump's bio page. This will make it easier for others to see exactly what was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated 😊 Loytra (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Remsense. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Taliban seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Remsense诉 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please see the edit description of my revert. I'm not really sure how you reached the conclusion that my edit was "less than neutral"; my short description uses language that is all found in the lead. It also provides a more accurate and clarified description of the organisation. Thanks. Loytra (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am pinging editors that have had an interest in the Fatima Payman article. A discussion is taking place on the article's talk page as to whether the Persian script should remain in the infobox, feel free to contribute if you would like! Thanks, DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Protect Scarlet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 23 § Protect Scarlet until a consensus is reached. cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]