May 2026
edit
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 Elaine Peacock, 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. – Meena • 17:57, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I'm DaniloDaysOfOurLives. I noticed that you recently removed content from Charlie Suff without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Just a note: putting "Make an effort to view my edits please before reverting them" in your edit summaries is really rude, especially when I said to you why I reverted your edits. If had used an edit summary in the first place it would have been much easier to explain why it was reverted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note — I’ll keep summaries neutral going forward. Just to clarify the content side so we’re on the same page:
- Per WP:LAYOUT & WP:BIO, Early life & Personal life are standard sections & don’t require a minimum size. Per WP:FILMOGRAPHY, filmography tables don’t need inline citations because the sourcing is handled in the prose. “Awards & nominations” is the standard heading when the subject has nominations but not wins.
- If you have a specific policy that supports combining the sections or requiring citations in the filmography table, feel free to link it — happy to discuss based on guidelines. LRQ 98 (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
- I want to say that this edit was innapropriate . I said on the talk page that I was reverting your edits until consensus was reached as it was granted GA status before your mass changes and hence I did not want it to lose its status, yet you ignored that twice, then you say I am reverting the changes as I made the page, which is not the reason I have given. You have repeatedly edit warred even when Meena and I have tried to stable things waiting for a discussion. Also, sources are not optional, see WP:BURDEN, and MOS:OVERSECTION also applies. There are many Wikipedia articles that are unsourced and they should be sourced and improved rather than changing existing articles. It does seem like you are continously reverting to match your own style and you have been rude in various of your edit summaries. I have repeatedly tried to show good faith but this has really tested my patience. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- You want to say? In other words, you are saying. A 'consensus'? Between whom? You, me & one other person? The latter two of which seemingly are familiar with each other & largely edit the same area of interest? Let's not insult each other here. So, despite being the individual who initiated the reverts, until a 'consensus' is reached, pages are subject to your wishes? Mass changes? I find it difficult to know if you are being serious or not. I would hardly say organising the filmography section constitutes making mass changes. You say you do not want it to lose GA status & yet you feel compelled to revert my edits despite this claim based on what exactly? I presented my sound rationale in the aforementioned talk page & you didn't reply. May not be the reason you have given, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. As I said on the talk page, only 4/49 pages I edited relating to EastEnders cast seemed to bother you & this is currently the only one you & you alone are vehemently opposing. What other conclusion am I suppose to draw? As regards to sources, I think you'll find I was referring to references in the filmography columns, which are, as Meena clarified, optional per WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Once again, I am improving the article by organising it? As opposed to having an three distinct mediums merged together. No, no, I think you'll find it's not my style, but the standard style adhered to across actor's wikipedia pages. It is you who seems to think an exception should be made in this case. With respect of alleged rudeness, I don't see how that has any bearing on the matter. I don't think monopolising a page despite efforts to refine it is all that polite either. LRQ 98 (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
- I want to say that this edit was innapropriate . I said on the talk page that I was reverting your edits until consensus was reached as it was granted GA status before your mass changes and hence I did not want it to lose its status, yet you ignored that twice, then you say I am reverting the changes as I made the page, which is not the reason I have given. You have repeatedly edit warred even when Meena and I have tried to stable things waiting for a discussion. Also, sources are not optional, see WP:BURDEN, and MOS:OVERSECTION also applies. There are many Wikipedia articles that are unsourced and they should be sourced and improved rather than changing existing articles. It does seem like you are continously reverting to match your own style and you have been rude in various of your edit summaries. I have repeatedly tried to show good faith but this has really tested my patience. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2026 (UTC)