User talk:TalkingFixer24

April 2018

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, 2017–18 Premier League, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Mick Jagger, did not appear constructive and has 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 the 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Laurence Fox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello, I'm TheDoctorWho. I noticed that you recently removed content from Line of Duty series 5 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. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as the character played by Stephen Graham is never referred to as 'Balaclava Man'. It is not an accurate name for his character and is unecessary for inclusion in the cast list. His character was called John Corbett or John Clayton. TalkingFixer24 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article explicitly state "Stephen Graham is playing balaclava man" TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source is from 5 months before the show was broadcast or Stephen Graham's characters name was known and is not refering to a character name.

It is wrong to use this as evidence of the characters name when watching the programme would show he is not once referred to by that name on screen or in the credits. TalkingFixer24 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the imdb page showing the accurate credits for this role.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0334318/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_0_nm_8_in_0_q_stephen%2520 TalkingFixer24 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The radio times article is from 5 months before the show was broadcast and is not proof the character is referred to as that, it is a speculative inclusion in that article, hence the quotation marks around it.

The character Stephen Graham plays is not called 'Balaclava Man' at any point in the show, it is not the characters name and should not be listed as such in this article, it's basic fact. TalkingFixer24 (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculative, this was an official casting announcement. Radio Times is a reliable source, regardless of if it was published before or after broadcast. Pre-release news is not something unusual and you have yet to produce another reliable source that contradicts what I have provided. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The casting announcement says his name is John Corbett, which it is, it doesn't actually state his name will be balaclava man, I believe you've misread it

I've watched the show where his name is John Corbett/John Clayton, and never Balaclava Man

Here is a Radio Times Article from when the show was actually broadcast that shows his name is John Corbett/John Clayton and not Balaclava Man

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/line-of-duty-stephen-graham-john-corbett-dangerous-villain/ TalkingFixer24 (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using speculative pre release articles and headline shorthand as a source for character names is not the right approach, when the characters name is clearly John Corbett/John Clayton on the show and in the credits TalkingFixer24 (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In case you had any doubts after Line of Duty shared official pictures of him wearing a balaclava, actor Stephen Graham (Little Boy Blue) has been confirmed as playing the mysterious "balaclava man" in the new series of the BBC's hit police drama.", read it again, it's not just in the headline. Common names are also a perfectly acceptable listing, as done here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is like saying an actor playing a footballer is called 'footballer' because an article says he is a footballer, you're ignoring the fact that the article you're citing is speculative pre release shorthand and is directly contradicted by the contents of the show itself, which I have just watched

The character is called John Corbett/John Clayton, he is not at any point called Balaclava man and that is a fact TalkingFixer24 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of speculative: "engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge" - this is not the case here, this is a news article and is not an assumption. That, is a fact. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is from before the show was broadcast, the name 'balaclava man' they use is speculative as it was based on conjecture of what the show would be like when broadcast

I have linked an article from after the show was broadcast that does not refer to the character by this speculative name, and instead refers to him by the correct name of John Corbett/John Clayton

I have also watched the show in question where he is referred to as John Corbett/John Clayton throughout and not once referred to as Balaclava Man, which is not a character name but a general description, including it as his characters name is a deep misunderstanding of the show TalkingFixer24 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think watching the show would prove it is being incorrectly used her for Stephen Grahams characters name

Just because haedlines use it as shorthand for his character, does not mean it is his characters name TalkingFixer24 (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/line-of-duty-stephen-graham-john-corbett-dangerous-villain/

This is an accurate and time appropriate source TalkingFixer24 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I directly quoted you a source that does not exclusively refer to it in the headline. In case you missed it, from this source, "In case you had any doubts after Line of Duty shared official pictures of him wearing a balaclava, actor Stephen Graham (Little Boy Blue) has been confirmed as playing the mysterious "balaclava man" in the new series of the BBC's hit police drama.", do you not see the word "confirmed" which illustrates this is NOT speculation.

There's also this source: "And another big revelation: Stephen Graham's "balaclava man" John Corbett is an undercover police officer!", which was published after the series began. And here: "Our man — nice moment that wasn’t it? “He?” – is DS John Corbett (Stephen Graham), the “balaclava man” " Need I found more?

As a side note, I request you not put words in my mouth and say that I'm "misunderstanding" a source, when I'm providing you with word for word quotes. This would more likely be a "difference of misunderstanding" because your understanding isn't my understanding of the source.

Regardless, I'd like to ask your intention with this edit where you changed the archive link in an unrelated source? I don't believe it was intentional vandalism, but request in good faith that you at least partially self-revert this edit to the correct link to the correct version, or otherwise it will be interpreted as such. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not show his name is Balaclava man, it is not the characters name, you would know this if you watched the show.

You are wrongly attributing a shorthand as the characters name which is completely incorrect. The show does not call him Balaclava Man once at any point, because it not the characters name. You are using sources other than the show itself to justify the addition of an incorrect name to the character played by Stephen Graham. The character is not called Balaclava Man, it is really simple. I've literally just finished watching the series he appears in.

The character is not called Balaclava Man, he is called John Corbett/John Clayton. I believe that if you actually watched the show you would understand the point I am making. I will continue to remove the incorrect information from this article. TalkingFixer24 (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you're using includes the name 'Balaclava Man' in quotation marks as it is used as shorthand for unknown characters within the universe of the show, it is not at any point in the universe of the show attached to the character played by Stephen Graham, he is only ever referred to on screen as John Corbett, or John Clayton.

The show itself is the ultimate source of information and having watched it, the character is not and is never called Balaclava Man, including it as a character name in the cast list is a gross misstatement of the contents of the programme. TalkingFixer24 (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't explained why you changed the archive-url of a source to one that does not match the source itself? Do you intend to fix this? TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about so I'll happily let you fix that mistake

As long as you don't keep adding incorrect information about the character TalkingFixer24 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it, please take care in your future edits not to make such mistakes, or to fix them yourself when they all made.

Anyways, I personally don't have the time or energy to keep arguing this with you so consider the matter closed, at least from myself. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is closed as the article is now accurate TalkingFixer24 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Line of Duty series 5, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. IMDb is not a reliable source. Please discuss instead of continuing to edit war when your preferred version directly contradicts reliable sources. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watching the show is a reliable source, and in the show the character is called John Corbett/John Clayton, he is not called Balaclava Man

You have misunderstood the sources you are quoting, rather than looking at the show itself and reading the credits, which show that the character is never referred to by the alleged name and its use in this cast list is incorrect

I also provided a reliable source that was time appropriate that showed 'Balaclava Man' is being misunderstood by the other editor as a name for the character when it is not TalkingFixer24 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]