You have been blocked from editing to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. (TW) |
Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk | contribs) Warning: Three-revert rule on Outland (film). (TW) |
||
Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''60 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> |
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]] You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''60 hours''' for [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may [[WP:Appealing a block|request an unblock]] by first reading the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. [[:en:User talk:GB fan|~ GB fan]] 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> |
||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] Your recent editing history at [[:Outland (film)]] shows that you are currently engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|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 [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to work toward making a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See [[Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle|BRD]] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. |
|||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]]'''—especially if you violate the [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule|three-revert rule]], which states that an editor must not perform more than three [[Help:Reverting|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.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Gareth Griffith-Jones, <small>The Welsh Buzzard</small>]] ([[User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones|Talk]]) 08:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:48, 7 April 2017
Arderich, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi Arderich! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
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.
May 2015
Hello, I'm Doniago. I wanted to let you know that I undid your recent edits to the The Rage: Carrie 2 plot summary because they added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Carrie (novel), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
June 2016
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the Soylent Green plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unneeded detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It is important to tell that Simonson was murdered, because Soylent feared, he might talk.Arderich (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
You're coming up on 3 reverts on the issue of Rosen being "prosecuted". You should point to a spot in the script where it shows he's going to be prosecuted, or you risk being accused of edit warring. For your use, here's the section of the script where you should be looking for a reference to support your POV:
- Rosen - That's really too bad. I'm sorry. He's a nice guy.
- Wells - He just forgot about the rules. What will you do after government service?
- Rosen - I'm not quitting.
- Wells - You ain't no presidential appointee. The one that hired you was me. You got thirty days.
You should also check the section on edit warring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring
Wells says "I´m going to have someone´s ass in my briefcase" at the beginning of the inquiry. He meant he is going to prosecute someone for this to make sure it will not happen again on the orders of the department. When he did put Rosen´s investigation file in his briefcase after everything was over and looked furious at Rosen, he told him he will be the one who will be prosecuted for what has happened, because everything was his fault. Additionally he fires him on the spot to make sure such leakage will not happen again, as he promised he would. Arderich (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the "and prosecutes" once again. While this discussion really belongs on the article talk page, you're not responding there and are instead doing it on my personal talk page. You should review the following articles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research Please state (on the article talk page, not on either of our personal pages) where a reliable published source for your contention that Rosen is prosecuted can be found. Zooks527 (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Arderich. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of JL-3
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on JL-3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Adem20 (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
February 2017
Please refrain from making changes to plot summaries/synopses that conflict with the plot summary edit guides, as you did at Outbreak (film). You may wish to review the specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. Excessive detail and high word counts should be avoided. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
- The same goes for The Caine Mutiny (film). Plot sections must be straight-forward descriptions of the action of the film, and cannot contain analysis or interpretation. Your edits deal with the motivation of the characters, which is not allowed. Please do not restore these edits again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
March 2017
Your recent editing history at Once Upon a Time in America 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. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Once Upon a Time in America.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MarnetteD|Talk 14:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User:MarnetteD. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 10:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ GB fan 14:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Soylent Green. That you appear to be edit-warring almost immediately after you were blocked for doing so is almost unfathomable to me. Please stop doing so immediately and discuss your edits at the article's talk page instead. DonIago (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deep Cover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synthetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
April 2017
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Once Upon a Time in America.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. MarnetteD|Talk 17:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ GB fan 17:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Outland (film) 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. Gareth Griffith-Jones, The Welsh Buzzard (Talk) 08:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)