User talk:Lililolol

Hi Lililolol, could you please list on the Talk page occasions/paras where the tone is not encyclopedic, then they can be addressed and the tag removed? Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed that you erased the Team Titans article (edit). The deletion of this article was at least debated or discussed, or you decided it arbitrarily? Fma12 (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fma12 Hi, I didn’t "erase" the content; I simply redirected it to a more appropriate article, which is the list of Teen Titans comics. This decision wasn't arbitrary; I acted boldly because the original Teem Titans article didn't meet notability guidelines like WP:FICT or WP:BK. Lililolol (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the redirect needed to be discussed beforehand, but if you disagree, feel free to improve the article to meet the guidelines. Once it meets them, you can revert my edit and add the improved content. Lililolol (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but I think it should have been discussed first. In fact, WP:be bold states "Although the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that you take care of the common good and not edit disruptively or recklessly". I'll find out. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to X-Men '97, 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. Clear reasoning has been given for why your edits were reverted, do not start an edit war. Please follow WP:BRD and take your concerns to the talk page. adamstom97 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 Hi, I do think my edits are organized. The lead section is better to ensure clearer flow and coverage of all important elements, making sure nothing feels out of place. Plus, I moved the viewership information into the release section, as it makes navigation easier and connects the two topics better. So Lililolol (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a standard layout and format for all MCU TV shows which applies to X-Men '97. If you wish to make a change to that you must establish consensus for your changes at the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97 Hi, is the "standard layout and format for all MCU TV" an essay or a policy? Could you direct me to it? Lililolol (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some details at WP:MCU, but for the most part I am talking about consensus that has formed across many articles and discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hard to Love (Blackpink song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lililolol! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Apt. (song) 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 at Talk:Apt. (song), 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. RachelTensions (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your revisions are unjustified, stop your malicious behavior. Gloern (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloern Lol "malicious" what?? Lililolol (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid to remove predictive expressions as they are not in keeping with Neutral Point of View as is required on this site. Gloern (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloern Hi, you removed the entire source, leaving the section unsourced! Like you should only remove the "prediction" instead of the whole source. Lililolol (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do a revert twice? The better solution was to reinsert the source reference alone, thus what you did could be considered as malicious behavior. Gloern (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloern Yeh, sorry about that. Re-inserting the source reference seems like too much work, so it’s better to just revert it and remove some parts instead. Lililolol (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hard to Love (Blackpink song) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Hard to Love (Blackpink song) and Talk:Hard to Love (Blackpink song)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hard to Love (Blackpink song) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hard to Love (Blackpink song) for comments about the article, and Talk:Hard to Love (Blackpink song)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Royiswariii -- Royiswariii (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:Twice – One Spark.webp

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 04:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]