User talk:Moon King

Moon King, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Moon King! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Soni (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Tazerdadog has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Welcome to wikipedia. Sorry for your introduction, that was rough. Feel free to let me or any other experienced editor know if we can be of assistance.Tazerdadog (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thank you for your welcome. I appreciate it. --Moon King (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Sun King (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You're reverting the linking of 'the' in the Beatles. It is like this on every other Beatles article. See Abbey Road. See John Lennon. See Because (Beatles song). This is not a matter of capitalizing 'the' in the Beatles. I already took note of that consensus. --Moon King (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the content dispute but editor behaviour. If you are reverted multiple times by different users, please follow WP:BRD and try to obtain consensus on the talk page first. If your bold edit has been reverted once, it should not be reinstated without discussion (even if you think you are right). Talk page is supposed to be used for content dispute resolution, not edit summaries. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No bold edit was made. It was a non controversial edit to align the page with other Beatles articles. --Moon King (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit is called a bold edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're mistaken. A bold edit is a significant change to a page, not expanding a link to avoid a redirect. --Moon King (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#General_overview. The first edit is the bold edit. Even if you think you are right, you are supposed to discuss. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. An edit that can be marked as minor (as mine certainly should have been) can in no way be considered bold. See WP:Bold.--Moon King (talk) 07:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the sentence where does it say that An edit that can be marked as minor (as mine certainly should have been) can in no way be considered bold. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not quote anything. I made a general comment. Please read the page. --Moon King (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your general comment is not totally correct. A bold edit is any edit to an established state of an article. I would recommend you to read the page again and understand. The reading doesn't support your interpretation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of the word 'bold' should be a given. Perhaps this passage is of use: "If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page." Extending a link to avoid a redirect is an example of a "simple copyedit".--Moon King (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:POINT

We are expected to collaborate and improve the encyclopaedia. Actions taken to prove a point do not help and can get an editor blocked. Your first AfDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suzuka Naval Arsenal (an article by MSJapan which was closed as a keep). After I reverted one edit of yours, you decided to PROD and than take another article of mine to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulau Saigon. I am sorry, but I cannot assume good faith any longer. You edits are becoming disruptive. I hope you will change your behaviour and contribute productively to the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal. You have brought yourself to my attention, I examined your edits, found that particular article, and determined that that particular article is not notable. --Moon King (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the previous AfD multiple editors told you that you don't have a clear understanding of what is notable. When multiple editors say something, it is best to hear it and think why it was said. I urge you to look through various AfDs and understand how the concept of notability works. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan explained that I needed to provide a policy based explanation and I believe I have. I also have similar concerns about the articles Pulau Seletar and Lazarus Island. I believe my concerns are valid.--Moon King (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]