User talk:GuyFromEE

December 2024

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GuyFromEE. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 02:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh no sockpuppetry here. I have ONE account. All i'm trying to do is fix the presentation of "Duration" for the EE characters Teddy, Nicola and Ruby. As "since 'year'" is INCORRECT grammatically and inconsistent with how other EE characters are presented. It also looks extreme amateur and i'm surprised it was allowed in the first place.

Except, it's not per MOS:DATETOPRES/MOS:SINCE, and improper dash is also invalid per MOS:NDASH, and MOS is to be followed. livelikemusic (TALK!) 14:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is inconsistent with how other Eastenders characters are presented.

Look at every other EE character page. The presentation style MUST be visually consistent. GuyFromEE (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to report you if you continue to ignore/contradict and refuse to comply with the agreed upon presentation style of the duration of a character's stint on Eastenders GuyFromEE (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GuyFromEE! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I'd accept the label of 'edit war' if it was a subjective edit. But this is an objective edit. The reverts are purposefully ignoring agreed upon presentation styles consistent across Eastenders character pages, and all soap character pages.

I have tried to discuss only to have my discussions/talk deleted without so much as a response. GuyFromEE (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GuyFromEE The remedy is to discuss it on that editor's talk page or the article talk page, or if that fails to bring it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests, not to continue to edit war. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have attempted to on multiple occasions only to have the discussion deleted/wiped out without so much as a response. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GuyFromEE: Hi. You have opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrative action review, but that is the wrong venue. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Nicola Mitchell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To be clear; I'm not saying I disagree with your edits, but it seems to have reached a consensus that "since 2024" is preferred. FishLoveHam (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based off what consensus though?

So one guy, @EEFamilyTrees, has come along and decided that the way it was done for years now suddenly needs to be changed? Creating messy, inconsistent articles? There's no consensus here? I'm simply keeping the presentation consistent. This one guy is now actively putting "Since-Year" in random spots on random EE character pages now yet i'm the one getting pushback for trying to clean it all up?

Presentation and aesthetic ARE important to wikipedia. If every character had used "Since year" from the start i'd have no issue. But this one account refuses to discuss it, refuses to keep with consistency and is actively now making random changes to random characters? It's bizarre.

But suit yourself. I'll drop it as I'm clearly losing this battle. But it all looks an ugly mess now unfortunately thanks to @EEfamilytrees. GuyFromEE (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm just gonna say, I didn't decide this. @Livelikemusic correctly informed us on Penny Branning's talk page that we are meant to use MOS:DATETOPRES/MOS:SINCE which says that we can't use 2024-present as 2024 is the present. Next week, it can say such, but not for now. I don't appreciate being called a vandal for using manual of style when you're refusing to give us evidence for your edits. EEfamilytrees (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that literally any other year of characters being introduced the "since year" has NOT been used. It's been "Year-present" consistently for characters introduced 2023, 2022, 2021 etc INCLUDING whilst we've still been in the year of their introduction.

You're actually making more work for yourself too. as "Year-present" will be in continuous use until their character leaves the show. It's unnecessary and only YOU recently have decided on these flippant changes.

Nigel too you've edited part of his story biography to "Since 2024" when "2024" was more than appropriate and when it turns to 2025 a simple "2024-" should be the correct format as again it remains consistent with how other articles have been done. The MOS may say one thing but you're the outlier actively going against how it's been done for a good number of years now.

And visually...it's just really not good to look at. Makes it look amateur hour. Congratulations, you've ruined alot of good work with this instance. Well done. Goodbye. GuyFromEE (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you engage in an edit war. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what??

I’m trying to fix the inconsistencies one editor keeps insisting on creating!

block me then. Watch it all turn into a mess. GuyFromEE (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]