An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dogtooth (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... because it has been beyond me just what you have been thinking. I added some info from a DJ Mag video interview, a bilboard peice on the gay bars, and now, for whatever reason, you completely contest info that falls under moderate coverage, and your edits are generally being a deriding factor in developing proper information. There is no consensus; I have proven that the info is reliable, timestamped, and (I altered some factual inaccuracies, like changing "Braxe said he wanted to do more" to "Diamond said..."). So far, the burden of proof falls unto you on why the info doesn't belong. I don't have a point to prove, it's impossible to. On the complaints of "poor prose", feel free to do copyediting instead of reverting 3 editors' worth of info.

I will be frank with you: Editing Music Sounds Better with You has, in large part to your unnecessary approach to dealing with moderate, yet vital info, been one of my worst user experiences as a whole. Not just Wikipedia, the entire internet. It is baffling, mind-boggling, how a single editor can edit with such needless contentiousness when vital expansion of a topic they are clearly interested in comes in. You have no case to why the supplemental, factual, vital info does not belong, so I will quote this excerpt from official policy:

while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. There is NO CONTERVERSY with the edits on that page. that policy does not cover my informational edits. Do not continue to accuse me of "edit warring" over adding simple, informative information. You may be blocked if you take such contentious actions. I also invite your return to my talk page to remove your accusation of edit warring.

I have to assume good faith on this platform, but I find it hard to when these kinds of blown-out-of-proportion situations come about for no reason. That being said, I bid you a good one, and invite you to stop now. BarntToust (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you make changes to an article, and those changes are contested, you need to find consensus on the talk page before reinstating those changes. Instead, you're repeatedly re-adding your changes, which is against the rules.

The way to get your changes accepted is to use the Music Sounds Better with You talk page to discuss them and get consensus for them. Popcornfud (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need to have a dialogue with you specifically on how the information should be integrated. You are saying things based only on principle, which is wholly inappropriate when taken out of context, as you are doing now, @Popcornfud. You consistently reverting factual information that adds to a better understanding of a topic is against the rules. I look forward to discussing this on the talk page. BarntToust (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]