User talk:Z. Patterson

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

If you came here because I reverted your unsourced change, cite your references in the article you changed. Do not bring them here.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Hey, I noticed in this edit that you didn't subst the warning. This causes the username (Hello, I'm USERNAME) to be replaced with the last person who edited the page. For example, rather than using {{vandal1}} please use {{subst:vandal1}}. Thanks. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your transclusion of Areaseven's RFA because Areaseven had not yet accepted it, hadn't edited it in weeks, and I couldn't tell if they had agreed to launch the current version. I left a message on their talk page, too. They should accept the nomination before it's transcluded. (And if they don't accept, it shouldn't be transcluded.) Levivich (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I understand now. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account and the last one warned are same. Can you lodge an SPI or report this to the admin? ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSMention269: I did at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pillowpeanut. Z. Patterson (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Z. Patterson! The thread you created at the Teahouse, "&nbsp" tag appearing in some edits I make, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Category:Aim for the Top! images a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Category:Gunbuster images. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the reversions. I made no uncited changes indeed the opposite. Puzzled Notafly (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Notafly: I initially believed "Head light" was disruptive editing. Upon further review of [1], I saw your changes were correct and I undid my change. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Z. Patterson (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now. A sentence would be better and your vigilance thus rewarded. Best regards and Happy New Year.Notafly (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; I am replying to you here, because as I stated in the top section of said talkpage, the IP talkpage you messaged me on is not a permanent IPA for me & any messages there will be lost the next time that my IPA changes.

On what conceivable basis do you claim that my responses on the Edward Furlong talkpage, in an ongoing discussion are "vandalism"?

Links are pending.

172.97.154.59 (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how exactly are my Talkpage comments, which you erased completely, considered "vandalism"?

This is your edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEdward_Furlong&diff=1267206659&oldid=1267206594

172.97.154.59 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@172.97.152.59: I misunderstood [2] as vandalism as this is a common insult that other users use. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and I realize the language I used is a little harsh, but if you check the other user's track record they seem to spend most of their time reverting other peoples' work, arbitrarily and rather carelessly, and without putting any effort into tidying up the pages post-revert or restoring any good parts of what they have erased. That is true for this article which they are sort of "camping" on long-term & for other pages. The user also has a history of ignoring requests to discuss it on the article's talk page, and of offering extremely weak rationales for their actions. This is the second time I've had this kind of problem with this same user in a dispute over revisions to this article. They did not acquit themselves well the last time and the material in question was ultimately restored. I think 'sloppy & careless' is a reasonably fair description of their work. AGF only goes so far; I am trying to limit my replies to criticism of the work and not the person. 172.97.154.59 (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]