User talk:IdiosyncraticLawyer

This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies.

Welcome IdiosyncraticLawyer!

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! SK2242 (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Late, but I have learned to use edit summaries consistently now. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Heap (comics), did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Yodas henchman (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late, but I apologize for accidentally adding a common note inappropriately. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by -noah- was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

YouTube is not a reliable source

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Anne Frank Video Diary and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Anne Frank Video Diary, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Noah ^💬 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IdiosyncraticLawyer! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Noah 💬 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your edits to the MCU articles in which you changed "fictional character" to "superhero". Using the term "superhero/heroine" across all MCU articles will create a uniformity problem, as some "superheroes" have also been in antagonistic/antiheroic roles such as Tony Stark, Clint Barton, and Wanda Maximoff to name a few. I propose we discuss this before changing it across all MCU character articles. Thank you. Bloodyboppa (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them superheroes doesn't create a uniformity problem; the term doesn't inherently contradict those roles. Antiheroes can still be superheroes, given how "superhero" just refers to any hero, conventional or not, who possesses superpowers; antisuperheroes are a thing. Neither does being an antagonist contradict the label, given how "hero" isn't synonymous with protagonist and "villain" isn't synonymous with "antagonist." "Hero Antagonist" and "Villain Protagonist" are recognized character archetypes. All the characters I marked as superheroes are objectively that type of stock character despite some also being antagonistic/antiheroic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that I have removed the maintenance tag you applied to Anne Frank and Me. Per WP:NOVELPLOT, a novel's plot summary should be between 400 and 700 words. At 461 words, this plot summary is an adequate length. Long, detailed plot summaries are discouraged on Wikipedia for reasons of copyright. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I erroneously placed the template there when I meant to go to another page. Apologies. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late, but upon remembering this more clearly, I now believe that my actual mistake was using a length maintenance tag when my primary concern was simply the plot summary being poorly written; I will keep how to use it properly in mind in the future. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (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) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you are doing this on what appears to be all http links in an article, including internally within archive URLs. This might work frequently, but it will not always work. You would need to verify the new URL is working. http://example.com and https://example.com are complete different URLs and can be hosted in different servers with different content. Not typically, but can be. And not all domains support https, thus converting to https could turn a live link into a dead link in those cases. Finally while archive.org usually supports http or https either way in the source URL it's usually best to leave it as it was originally captured, in case any of the previously mentioned conditions occurred when it was captured. -- GreenC 18:52, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will remember this. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Category:Lang and lang-xx template errors. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop removing links to {{=}} and replacing them with off-site links to a MediaWiki page that does not explain things well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for the edit war and will refrain from such behavior in the future. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page.
A second message may be overkill in this situation, but this is your notification about WP:3RR. Be careful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I have reviewed the relevant policy. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disabling links to pages that help editors understand what the code in question does. Also please stop linking to less helpful MediaWiki pages when we have local pages that provide better explanations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I apologize for my mistakes and will cease to make such edits. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A few pages on my watchlist had {{ititle}} replaced with {{italic title}} by you, for example here. You might want to have a look at WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:MEATBOT. Not an issue with me, but others might feel differently. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care to adhere to WP:MEATBOT. However, I don't believe that anything I did contravenes WP:NOTBROKEN. {{ititle}} is a wrapper template for {{italic title}}, not a redirect to it, and its purpose is to allow a shorthand for editors to pass the |string= parameter to the latter without having to type out the parameter name; it doesn't make sense to use such a wrapper on pages that don't need the |string= parameter in the first place. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

not a redirect See WP:5P5 and WP:LETTER.

make sense Saves keystrokes. Like, say, {{tl}}. The point being that these changes are not improving anything, so why not spend the effort on something productive? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Paradoctor (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to my user space were not helpful. Stop doing that. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:54, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll stop. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edits to other editors user spaces as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UOWN, "Other users may edit pages in your user space [...] one should avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages, except when it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful [...] If an editor asks you not to edit their user pages, such requests should, within reason, be respected." All I did with my edits was correct formatting without ever touching the substantial content of the pages, which qualifies as allowed edits under the guideline. You requested that I stop editing your pages, which I will adhere to, but the guideline doesn't mean that you're allowed to make such requests for other users on their behalf; I'll only revert my edits to their user spaces if they ask me. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are cosmetic edits. You've already been told to stop making similat edits in mainspace. Moving over to userspace is disruptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I was told was "Not an issue with me, but others might feel differently" in the above conversation, which isn't telling me to stop. You feel differently about it then the last person who spoke to me about this, and I'll abide by that, but you don't dictate what other users feel; I shall abide by what they feel if they confirm it to me. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are objectively not helpful. They're cosmetic edits and that's not a good enough reason to edit someone else's user page. If you continue I'll take this to ANI. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop editing user pages, then. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All I did with my edits was correct formatting No, you didn't. Those template invocations were already entirely correct. I did point you to WP:NOTBROKEN before. Since you apparently did not read the WP:GUIDELINE, allow me to quote:

editors should not change [...] just to "fix a redirect" (added emphasis)

Paradoctor (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that (I just didn't read it as broadly as intended), but sorry. IdiosyncraticLawyer (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. WP editing has a loooooong learning curve. And no end to it. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]