I just declined your 3O request, as there is no discussion yet on the talk page. I just wanted to note that the one of the golden standards of discussion on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. When one editor reverts, it's best practice for the initial bold editor to start a discussion. Feel free to re-request a third opinion after discussion on the talk page is stuck. Femke (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide me with the message you reverted from thrid opinion request. Just post it here. I'll post that on the talk page. CerroFerro (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just relocated it. --CerroFerro (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the other editor does not respond (be sure to ping them), consider the advice given at WP:DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC) (another 3O volunteer)[reply]

No need for that, Transporterman: this article is closely guarded. Editors User:Modernist and User:Coldcreation are also monitoring the page.--CerroFerro (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good day from this end... I have added uncategorized tag on the said article. Do well to add some categories to it. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CerroFerro: How goes it? I reviewed the article you updated. Great work!! I wonder if you could return and fix the sources section by putting in proper full cites. The way to do it create the citation and then remove the ref tags, leaving the bare citation. Please take a look at WP:REFB, its a wee tutorial that shows you how to create a citation. You basically and copy a paste and it creates it for you, from cite button at the top here. Hope that helps. I'll fire up a bare url tag until their fixed. Its a great article and would be a shame not see proper citations. scope_creep^Talk 13:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope Creep: In future, I shall use the format you suggested. Best Wishes. --CerroFerro (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought...I attempted to use the formatting you suggested. I find the whole process clumsy and error prone. The one I've used traditionally provides all the source information and more that the wp:REFB offers, without eliciting error notices, with perfect clarity. What say you? --CerroFerro (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scope creep: The Wp:REFB offered the template format in this form: {{cite news}}: Empty citation (help).

I found it difficult to insert the data. I reformatted it this way.

{{cite news}}: Empty citation (help).

Still getting errors. Not sure why.--CerroFerro (talk) 17:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is about 14 citation types or maybe more. Take a look at WP:CS. It has the layouts for you. The cite button in the editor window above is how you access it. It opens a dialog and you fill it in. There is one for news, one for books, one for web, one for citing thesis, one for citing AV recording and so on, different depending on what you need to cite. I'm not seeing any errors. scope_creep^Talk 17:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CerroFerro,

Thank you for creating The Hours After Noon.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for this article! I'm tagging a too long plot, it's poorly written IMHO and far too lengthy. This probably meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, though I'm unsure how long the Ditsky one is.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:VickKiang: When I consider a Plot summary to be overly long, I rewrite the section myself, then submit it to the editor who wrote the original section for his/her consideration. See User talk:Οἶδα for a recent example of this approach. --CerroFerro (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. Just pointing out that per MOS:PLOT, WP:Manual of Style/Film § Plot suggests that plot summaries for feature films be between 400 and 700 words. Your plot overview is unfortunately 1100+ words, which is definitely a bit too long. I know this isn't for books specifically but still is applicable. Based on the edit history, I see another editor have tried to rv the long plot additions. Again, this is a comparatively minor suggestion that won't have many impacts (I'm only unsure whether the second book ref is long enough) unless this article is going to be a B or GA class one. VickKiang (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Train Dreams, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Wallace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For The Garden (short story), as I can't access the offline refs while reviewing, if it is possible could you tell me how long is the Ditsky 1986 ref? Many thanks! VickKiang 22:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CerroFerro,

Thank you for creating The Garden (short story).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for the article! On your talk page, I've opened a new discussion on how long the Ditsky ref is, as there are currently just two refs, with the Hibbard ref being quite long, but I'm unsure how long the Ditsky ref is. If it turns out that the Ditsky ref is one page or more of non-trivial coverage, I'll remove this notability tag and mark this as reviewed, as two in-depth, significant, reliable sources are usually needed to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|VickKiang}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

VickKiang 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki - DO NOT continue this discussion on my Talk page. Go to the Talk Page for The Garden (short story). --CerroFerro (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just automatic because of the Page Curation tool. Apologies if this has left you frustrated, I will not notify you here for future reviews. VickKiang 21:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

=

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently in breach of the 1R rule for these articles at Farha (film). Since you have not in the past received an awareness notification, I have filed one above. Edit warring against consensus is not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict per se, and I think you know it. The question is whether a simple citation from the WSWS can be deleted for unstated reasons based on "consensus". This is a fundamental question of principle, not opinion.

If you wish to find a forum that believes that Trump won the 2020 presidential election, no doubt you can find "consensus" on the matter.

Joanne Laurier of WSWS has in effect stated that "2 + 2 = 4" The quote she cited in her article has been retained as a suitable box quote, but the Wikipedia Establishment refuses to allow her to be the messenger for a statement from film director Darin J. Sallam. Instead, you defend deleting the ref and replacing it with a ref that has a history of red-baiting and anti-communism during the McCarthyite witch hunts. The Hollywood Reporter. You falsely claimed that the WSWS was "additional" - you know it was not.

As usual, the tactic is to issue a threat that an editor is in "breach", and liable to being censored i.e., blocked from Wikipedia. Utterly unprincipled and, I regret to say, rather cowardly. CerroFerro (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are now in clear breach of 1R after awareness notification and on the verge of breaking 3R, kindly self revert immediately. Selfstudier (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diff1

Diff2

Diff3 Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are following this dispute, note that the imperative for the Wikipedia Establishment is deter editors from citing the World Socialist Web Site on this online encyclopedia. That is paramount. --CerroFerro (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Heavy Water (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CerroFerro, of all 44,767,420 registered users of Wikipedia, you chose Bobfrombrockley for assistance in a dispute about the page Farha (film). Which criterion made you choose this specific user? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Monitoring by posts for violations? Pleasant and fulfilling occupation for some social types. Good work.

As to "canvassing" allow me to quote: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

There you go. Now proceed with some other project. And by the way, the issue that arose regarding the suppression of the Joanne Laurier ref has been settled. From this point forward, its about educating Wiki editors and contributors as to the implications of this political censorship and to establish a degree of consensus, but not conformity.--CerroFerro (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you haven't actually answered my question, I'll state my assumption and you'd be welcome to correct it if it's incorrect. You have notified Bobfrombrockley because you are upset about the removal of a politcally left website citation, and you have messaged someone advertising their far-left positions on their userpage to gain politically motivated support for your position. This is canvassing. If you continue doing this, you may be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in a type of Wikipedia:Harassment, known as "wikihounding."

And by the way, you don't have a chance in Hell of blocking me for my "politics" - you have no evidence of what my so-called politics may be. If you consider me to be a terrorist, kindly contact the FBI. Now get lost.--CerroFerro (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the article Falk Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CerroFerro, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joe. I shall do my utmost to meet the high standards for content and fidelity to Wiki Rules with which you have entrusted me, my Userpage notwithstanding.--CerroFerro (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:THE COMPLETE UNCOLLECTED STORIES OF J. D. SALINGER (1974).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Complete Uncollected Short Stories by J. D. Salinger (1974) vol. 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure why you reverted my edit completely. I tried to fix the article per manual of style. Thedarkknightli (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: my had mistaken your material for another edit. CerroFerro (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Robert Kerber (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Lewis Milestone for a period of one week for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]