Hello, SanAnMan and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing!  Jim Reed (Talk)  19:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

SanAnMan, I wanted to let you know that I just nominated We Built This Glee Club to be included in the main page's "Did You Know" section. As nominator, I'm responsible for supplying the quid pro quo review (because I have more than five nominations under my belt); I did include myself as a "creator" in addition to you because of my work on the Plot and Production sections and the general copyediting—the way DYK works, anyone who has made significant contributions to the article before its nomination is included as a "creator" even if they didn't make the first edits.

If you have any other ideas for a "hook", please feel free to suggest them. The rules require that the hook must be shorter than 200 characters (including spaces) and all the facts in it must be cited inline, no later than the end of the sentence in which the fact appears. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. At some point, an independent reviewer will review the nomination, which will either result in approval or in a request to modify the article and/or hook so it meets all the relevant DYK criteria. I've had a lot of experience in the DYK space, so I don't anticipate any significant issues beyond those I've already noted in the nomination header. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Dreams Come True (Glee) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Teemu08 (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from the wiki for your help Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SanAnMan. While conducting a sockpuppetry investigation, I made the mistake of clicking the block button on your account instead of the intended target. I unblocked your account as soon as I realized my mistake, but unfortunately, there isn't anything I can do except explaining my mistake in the unblock message. This isn't a mistake I'm prone to making, and I am terribly sorry for spoiling your previously clean block log! Embarrassedly ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DoRD, fair enough, just don't let it happen again or I'll give you 39 lashes with a wet noodle!!  :)

Seriously though, mistakes happen, no big deal, I appreciate the notice and quick resolve. -- SanAnMan (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding! ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SanAnMan. My edits to American Grit are perfectly constructive and I demand that they stop being reverted. My edits make it more accurate. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.23.241 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:70.89.23.241 - While I appreciate your opinion, I firmly disagree. Your edits to American Grit were not constructive. They did not make it more accurate. You seriously need to read on editing standards, I suggest starting with the WP:Tutorial. Specifically, you need to explain why you are making changes, not just change for the sake of change. Also, demanding that I do anything is really rude and totally not necessary. I will continue to revert any unconstructive changes you make. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SanAnMan. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the contestants name is incorrect. I changed it, but you had reverted it. Please recheck with Fox Masterchef, they had corrected it on their end as well as they had originally had the name incorrect.

Suzeeq13 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)suzeeq13 Suzeeq13 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzeeq13: Provide a source that proves this then. The source in the article is from a Fox press release which states the name as given in the article. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The day Fox press release put it online, the contestant himself contacted them and Fox Masterchef or Endemol Shine, corrected it. I have a snapshot of the correction, but please check with them for varification. Suzeeq13 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)suzeeq13[reply]

@Suzeeq13: That's not my responsibility. If you have the source, provide it. I've checked the website where all Fox press releases are kept and there is no change listed. We can only go by what can be proven by sources. - SanAnMan (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://www.fox.com/masterchef/article/meet-the-newest-batch-of-home-cooks&ved=OahUKEwiYvrChurvVAHUCqFQKHTFfBm4FggoMAM&usg=AFQjCNHIROT4ZuthrESY1mfU_V1iplztMw Suzeeq13 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)suzeeq13[reply]

@Suzeeq13: Page not found error. - SanAnMan (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fox.com/masterchef/article/meet-the-newest-batch-of-home-cooks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzeeq13 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suzeeq13: Yep, that's the same article we used for the original source. But no matter, I found another article which gave his correct name and used it as a source, so it's been changed. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I replied to your message on my talk page. Thief12 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I missed that. What's ironic is that I wrote it! Oy...! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles for Seasons 1-7 of Masterchef has every contestants city linked, even if the city is listed earlier. It improves the visual look of those sections and maintains consistency, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to revert this edit. Aruton (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruton: Per policy at WP:OVERLINK that’s why. - SanAnMan (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but did you read the sections on duplicate and repeat links? Flexibility is built into this policy. "Duplicate linking in lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." The contestants section is just that, a list that will generally be scanned for specific information such as home town or occupation. I also think it just looks weird with a single unlinked city. Thanks a bunch. - Aruton (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aruton: It's the way it's been done both on this article as well as many other reality television articles. I do understand your frustration, but there's also a reason to the MOS being the way that it is. You're welcome. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your position re: the connections among the various American Iron Chef shows on the Iron Chef America talk page. Once you revert, it it your obligation to begin a discussion; I've done that for you. You contend there is some sort of "family" connection; the discussion will allow you to gain consensus for that position, or to present reliable sources that there is such a thing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello, SanAnMan. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was something the episode outright stated but whatever,be haughty ,i was doing an edsit in good faith and was merely trying to justify myself :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.104.86.97 (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@90.104.86.197: Then why did you put in your edit summary "IMHO"? That literally means "in my humble opinion". If you had stated that the next episode actually stated that it was Toronto then I wouldn't have reverted it. Instead you said that your edit was due to your opinion. Please be more clear in your edit summaries. - SanAnMan (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Splatty Tomato shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be engaging in the same reversions that I am. The difference being, I'm not persistently violating WP:UNBROKEN, nor am I writing grammatically incoherent sentences or employing redundant wording as you seem to be doing, nor ignoring attempts to point this out in edit summaries, nor gutting the summary of the episode in the Lead. That's all you.

For my part, I have incorporated or agreed with a number of your edits, such as changing in flagrante delicto, removing mention of the alt-right, adding Randy further up to the passage on the kids' realization of the Stranger Things and It references, the wikilink on the Rotten Tomatoes score, which I hadn't thought of during my first write of the Lead and Synopsis, fixing a verbal contraction, etc.

Why don't you try letting someone who knows how to write a sentence, and for that matter, a decent story synopsis, just do his thing, and make those little tweaks that you do pretty well? There is 'nothing about the synopsis that is too long, nor does the article need to be "smaller". The material I have written is relevant, and reasonable. All you're doing by fighting me ensuring the same illiterate, incoherently written gibberish of hit-or-miss clarity that tends to pass for content on the South Park articles when I don't write them. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]