User talk:BrightR

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leggings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanko (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) 09:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Link at WP:ONUS

Hi! If you want to avoid a link to Determining consensus is ok, say so. But the reason you provide in your revert does not address my reason for having the link, which is to point to that particular section, not the policy lead. Diego (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Anybody reading the paragraph wondering how consensus is reached can click the existing link. Bright☀ 21:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

BrightR, I'm afraid your position doesn't make much sense. The last change was done taking into account your expressed concerns and attempting a compromise. Discussion has happened through edit comments, but your last revert did not include a reason for it, and it satisfied your requirement that it only has one edit to the WP:Consensus policy. And you did not address my concern that ONUS should lead users directly to the introductory text at Determining consensus; plus you also oppose copying that target sentence instead of linking to it. At this point, it is you who need to explain why you oppose the change from one link to another. By the way, you have now crossed the 3RR limit, having been reverted by two different editors. Diego (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've explained. You're making a bold edit, you didn't reach consensus. You're editing a policy; consider discussing things further before making bold changes. Slightly reworking the change that was made doesn't mean you shouldn't discuss it. Bright☀ 14:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I was discussing it, in the edit comments. You resorted to reverting without providing a reason for the revert even though it addressed your expressed concerns (and are still not providing it. Why did you revert the latest change even though it only included one link? We are discussing now, so explain yourself. Per BRD, "reverting per BRD" is not a valid reason for a revert). Diego (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

reverting without providing a reason - come on.

I was discussing it, in the edit comments. - an edit summary is not a discussion, it's the reason for your edit. Please discuss it on WT:Verifiability. "Discussing through editing" is a very bad practice. Bright☀ 18:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't any opinion (yet) on the edit. But I do agree that edit summaries are not a proper form of discussion. And that BRD is a "reason" for a revert; that is, no other reason is needed. So take it up on the Talk page. Though I wonder if that would just complicate matters there. Is there any urgency in making this change now? Yes, we want WP to be perfect, but does it have to be today? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"Reverting because it's a bold edit" is not a valid reason, but that's not why I reverted. I gave my reason(s) for the revert, and instead of discussion I was met with more edits, albeit slightly different. I'll gladly discuss this further on WT:V. Bright☀ 20:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

instead of discussion I was met with more edits, albeit slightly different. Doing that is WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which is Wikipedia policy. It's funny that you consider it "not a proper form of discussion", but it definitely is a proper way to reach consensus (and therefore "following the normal protocol"); the "slightly different" changes were significant, in that they incorporated your feedback and thus were attempts to "seek a compromise", per policy. You gave your reasons for the first revert (and your second, and your third), but my last edit incorporated a fix to your stated concern (which was having "two links to the same policy in a tiny three-sentence section") - so your latest revert (the fourth one in less than 24 hours) was not justified by your stated reason.

"Reverting because it's a bold edit" is "not a valid reason" per the BRD page itself, which states "BRD is never a reason for reverting, not merely my words. (Albeit BRD is just an essay, it's the idea you referenced in your last change to revert the bold edit).

I have requested thrice now that you explain why this edit, which did not contain two links to WP:Consensus, was not acceptable to you. And still waiting. Are you going to discuss the change in the talk page? Diego (talk) 10:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing your story. You said you I was discussing it, in the edit comments which is not a proper discussion, and now you're claiming editing consensus, it definitely is a proper way to reach consensus, which it isn't, after edits get reverted you should discuss, not force another edit. Go. Discuss. Bright☀ 13:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

after edits get reverted you should discuss, not force another edit That affirmation directly contradicts WP:EDITCONSENSUS which allows changes either "through editing or through discussion", but I'm tired of arguing policy with you. Whenever you want to discuss the content of policy, I'll be at Talk:Verifiability. So far it seems clear to me that you didn't have a reason for your last revert other than a wish to prevent change. Diego (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Diego Moya: Two edits prior to yours were reverted. Instead of discussing, you forced a third edit, with slight changes. You need to discuss it. If you're "tired of arguing" why don't you discuss the change instead. By the way, here's the policy you keep bringing up:

Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

But it was disputed, so it does not have consensus.

When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion

There were two edits, there was no agreement, instead of discussing you edited again. I tell you again: Go. Discuss. Bright☀ 17:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Highlighting

It is a long-standing practice in AFD pages to highlight somebody's else !votes . I see this quite harmless, because people often forget doing this. Sorry again. I didnt try to read your mind; I just didn't think it changed your meaning. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

While your edit itself was benign enough, I've recently been "corrected" in this fashion a number of times, which is extremely rude and against Wikipedia guidelines. Bright☀ 12:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy

Hi - thanks for your interest in editing the Ed, Edd n Eddy article. I was involved with bringing the article to FA-status several years ago, so I watch any changes that are made to it pretty carefully. That said, I recognize that there's still definite room for improvement. Adding the link for "boiling lines" is a good idea. But it's still unclear to me why you've removed the information from Animation World Magazine. Was this a mistake? --Jpcase (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. Bright☀ 17:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the source back in...although the statement that you're using it for isn't the same as what had been in the article before. The new commentary that you added from the source is good - and goes to show how a lot could potentially be done to expand the current version of our article. But are you intentionally removing the reference to Dr. Katz? I'm not sure why you would want to omit that particular sentence. --Jpcase (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to put it next to Squigglevision but it made using the ref tags a bit cumbersome so I gave up. Bright☀ 18:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Time travel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativity (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) 10:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Harassment. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Red link. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 12 Monkeys, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Any talk page watchers, this is a WP:POINTy edit since I've been undoing TheOldJacobite's against-MOS and against-WP:V edits on 12 Monkeys. Bright☀ 13:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Ren & Stimpy Show as a possible GA?

Hello. While we're still discussing the issue regarding verb tense for the Nicktoons revival on the article's talk page, I'm still thinking about getting The Ren & Stimpy Show article up to at least a GA/FA status, using The Simpsons (an FA) as a model. Given that I've previously done a peer review and my interest in any type of animation and music in general, I think there's a lot to do to help get it up to GA or an FA; for example, there should be a themes section and the reception section needs to be expanded with a possible awards and accolades section. With that said, do you mind if we should join forces? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think The Simpsons is a very poor model and mirroring it is part of the reason bad habits form on a lot of articles, such as a table with images that interrupts the prose in the cast section. It is far preferable to see what's actually in accordance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines than simply mimic other articles, which might be marked "good" but still suffer from many bad habits. Bright☀ 13:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The best way to make an article good is to use high-quality reliable sources as references. For example if you can find a better source for R&S being the highest-rated cable television show ever at the time of its airing, that would improve the article. Currently this information is sourced to an article that mentions it in passing. Similarly, any other unsourced or poorly-sourced information should be better-sourced or removed. Good luck with the Good Article nomination. Bright☀ 14:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:2017 ANI reform RfC

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:2017 ANI reform RfC. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot policy. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Balfour Declaration

Hi Bright, last year you kindly commented on the peer review of Balfour Declaration. The article is now at WP:FAC, in case you'd like to add further comments. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick update – not long after I posted this here, I was informed that the FAC had been archived and so the article wasn't promoted. I have however opened another peer review, so if you do have the time and inclination to review the article again, you can do so there. Many thanks, Onceinawhile (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems like a great article and that the sources have been diversified, which should increase the article's stability and neutral-point-of-view-ity. Bright☀ 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

This discussion concerns you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Notability

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Notability. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

hang in there

Here [1] Cryptic informed Legacypac that if he struck another editor's comments again he would be blocked from editing. This was in reference to his modification of other editor comments here: [2].

That warning followed an earlier warning in which User:DESiegel also cautioned [3] Legacypac, as per WP:TPO, about editing/deleting/striking others comments, like he did in two different instances here [4] and here [5].

Today, you also warned [6] Legacypac about modifying other editors comments, and I am aware there have probably been other incidences as well, in addition to this.

I don't know how long Legacypac will allow this comment to remain on your Talk page before/if he deletes or modifies it, but if you see it before that happens I just wanted to let you know that others have experienced / are experiencing this as well. I'm sorry you seem to be the latest. DocumentError (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)