![]() | This user has been
banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the
banning policy before unblocking. ( block log · contributions · discussion at ANI) |
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
South Park: Post Covid, 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. Thank you.
Kpddg (
talk) 03:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Given that you were named in the comment you deleted, it was especially inappropriate of you to delete it. If you don't feel it belongs, you should respond asking for another editor to delete it. If anything, by deleting it yourself you may have made the complaint appear more valid.
DonIago (
talk) 15:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, TVSGuy here, and like you, I happened to edit Wikipedia articles because sometimes there are notable things or otherwise viral. I heard you recently joined in and you are happen to be a fan of MCU series because I do happen to watch that too. And so asking are you new to Wikipedia and you learn so fast? Just asking. Thanks and hope you have a good time editing. TVSGuy ( talk) 04:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Help change colors, based on [ [1]]. Thanks you. Edmyoa ( talk) 07:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Removed with the "Moved to" in Planeta U if you did, someone will blocked from editing without further notice. User:Angel Arreguin Hernandez ( talk) 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you will eventually be blocked permanently. Writing unreasonable edit summaries and edit warring can only go unnoticed for a while. ภץאคгöร 18:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
JoanHeart (
talk) 01:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
For future reference, what I am suggesting is that you take a bit of time and try to find a compromise or solution at the talk page before jumping straight to reporting someone unnecessarily. We were able to sort this out super quickly once we had the conversation so it is actually a great example of how the system can work. Also, you stated or implied multiple times during this whole episode that you were a new editor supposedly being bullied or taken advantage of by an experienced editor which is quite disingenuous considering you have confirmed at this talk page that you have been editing Wikipedia anonymously and are not as new as your account suggests. I recommend either being more upfront about that or trying not to imply that you are a new and inexperienced editor in the future. You clearly have a good understanding of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and worked well with us during the discussion once you focused on the content rather than supposed personal/behavioural issues so I think you should be fine moving forward if you take the right lessons from this whole thing. Thanks, adamstom97 ( talk) 08:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors have reverted you. Please do not engage in edit warring. Editors who repeatedly do so risk being blocked, as you have previously been warned. Thank you. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted once again. At this point, I don't know how you can take the position that you are not engaged in edit warring. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
That’s because they didn’t read the talk page.I would not be so sure of that. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Just checking in. Are you doing alright? LittleFinn9 ( talk) 07:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand why you reverted my edit but... even in its previous form, when it was a redirect, it would have been acceptable. Now, that a LOT of information about the show is available, it now has a page. I actually only added that link to prepare the page for my split of content from various pages to create that page, which is a clearly a show in its own right. But, I am excited for the reboot/revival, even though I just finished season 1 of the original series. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 01:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry I left this message on the wrong page.
Tartar
Torte 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
TartarTorte. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Amy Schneider, 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. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you for contributing to the article and trying to find an accurate DOB. Your efforts are definitely appreciated, however on wikipedia there are pretty strict standards on what is considered reliable or not when it comes to living people and also how much personal information of living people should be made public. If you want to discuss further please feel free to respond here and tag me by using {{
u|TartarTorte}} in your reply or {{
ping|TartarTorte}} in your reply.
Tartar
Torte 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't let WP:AN gaslight you. Yes, you were no doubt being trolled by LittleFinn9. I'm sorry the AN thread makes it seem like no one cares about that. Ponyo and Bbb23 are, literally, an order of magnitude or more better at identifying and dealing with socks, but if they aren't around someday, feel free to ask me for help if a suspicious new account miraculously finds your talk page. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at
Tony Hale, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
WP:BLP /
WP:DOB speak for themselves.
Toddst1 (
talk) 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Blazing Samurai. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
If someone attempts to turn a talkpage into a forum to debate something, the best thing to do is either ignore them or treat it as a user conduct issue (removing, warning, or reporting, as appropriate). By engaging with them, you risk going against WP:NOTFORUM yourself. In the case of your exchange with the IP at Talk:Amy Schneider, I've just removed y'all's exchange, since it didn't really have anything to do with improving the article. Also, please be aware that there are some heightened expectations of editors on the topics of gender and sexuality:
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
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.
Thanks. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 01:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your last warning; as you did at
Toonturama and
Planeta U, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice by the bot/admin. (
User talk: Angel Arreguin Hernandez) 22:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your last warning; as you did at
Toonturama, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
User:2603:8080:500:2c5d:a439:2e00:facf:21a 02:28, February 5, 2022(UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Fungies!. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. A non-verified Twitter is not a reliable source, and either way the creator doesn't speak for the network. Magitroopa ( talk) 05:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
If you don't start talking with respect without calling names, calling me racist, sexist and claming that everything you don't like is tantrum, I will have to report you to moderators. Try to be civil. Kanikosen ( talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see
WP:ANI#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc..
Magitroopa (
talk) 07:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Aoidh ( talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
CreecregofLife, I'd recommend you take a break from the Pokemon RfC. What you are doing can be considered
WP:BADGERING
WP:BLUDGEONING, especially with some of those snide remarks. Leave your !vote and wait some time before engaging again in that discussion. I see a couple participants are already annoyed.
Isabelle
🏴☠️ 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop policing that page--thanks. Drmies ( talk) 18:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm sorry I got confused on the Peacemaker article and incorrectly reverted your edit. Glad we're both on the same page about spoilers. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Don't use any sources that base their reports on TMZ, especially not for contentious/personal claims that involve living people.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 04:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film)? TO my knowledge Colleen has never been on the billing block, and I"m not going to count her being credited on her own poster as being on the billing block. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power edits
I notice you are relatively new around here, so I will explain a few things to you.
1) In reference to the above edit summary I used as the section heading, the TWinkle widget is going to add warnings to the bottom of the monthly warning section (not necessarily to the end of the page, and we users have no control over that.) As a side note, this works well for most folks — as most editors don't have all the additional warnings that you seem to be accumulating this month.
2) The Twinkle notices I posted to you that you erased contained links to both the Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:List of Unreliable Sources. If you had availed yourself of these links, you may have saved both of us some time, as Metro is assuredly featured prominently on that list as a crappy source. I am also confused why you added back those other bad sources too.
3) Edit warring will get you blocked.
4) Just a personal observation: You seem to be struggling with the collaboritive aspect of editing Wikipedia, judging by what all is written above, and how you reacted to by edit. I didn't revert your edit to be an asshole. There was a definite, non-controversial reason for it. All you had to do was look at the link(s) I provided you. Instead, you chose to edit war over it. I would suggest if you work with people here (instead of what seems to be a pattern of regularly fighting with them), you'll get more of your points across. If you had looked at the number of edits I have, and number of years I have been editing here, you may have realized that our interaction may have been a learning opportunity for you. (Would it have hurt you to maybe ask on my talk page why I deleted those bad references instead of immediately starting to edit war?)
5) Most of the editors here are doing their best to improve the articles. You should pro-actively assume good faith and not negatively react to a disagreement in editing content or style. You'll make more friends, and you'll enjoy editing more.
Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 18:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like there is confusion on the way it is written. The problem with the way it is written is that there is no set length for the season (a fluid fact) and that there is an asymmetrical amount across the board. Whereas my statement is a hard fact with not much fluidity to it. GoWarriors151718 ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, which I'm not sure because I don't normally edit BLP articles. Per WP:BRD, if you made an edit and were reverted, you must take it to talk page, not the one that reverts you. If you revert the reversion without a clear and simple argument in your edit summary, then you've started an edit war. The warning you deleted was correct. — El Millo ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
citation neededas a summary, which is incorrect because "citation needed" refers to unsourced content, not to matters of policy. That was an hour and a half before you went to the other editor's talk page ( [3]). Only one minute after going to their talk page, you again reinstated your edit ( [4]), either without waiting for an answer or without responding to the one given at that exact minute ( [5]). So no, you did not
follow protocol, according to which you should've gone to either the article's talk page or the other user's talk page right after they reverted you per WP:BRD, or reinstate just once according to WP:BRB either ammending your edit or providing a clear edit summary that may save both editors some time. You should also stop acting as if you were being treated unfairly in every conflict you are when it's you that constantly gets into trouble with different editors. — El Millo ( talk) 05:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation to a reliable source. I showed you that you didn't proceed correctly. IJBall told you
Asked, and answered. Do not WP:EWin their edit summary ( [6]) after you reverted them for the second time one minute after going to their talk page without even waiting for an answer, which is disruptive. You were finally directly called "disruptive" when you reverted for a third time ( [7]) by Amaury, who said in their edit summary:
WP:DE from disruptive user. Stop edit warring or a report will be filed against you.
Take it up on the talkpage if you disagreeand then reverted them once again saying:
Issue unresolved; don't jump the gun, which is exactly why you shouldn't have gone back and kept reverting. Discussing is for the edit–reversion cycle to stop, it's not for you to post a message and then run to start an edit war. — El Millo ( talk) 06:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t say or do a single thing wrongOh, so you stopped editing and started discussing after your edit was reverted? No. Did you actually wait until the issue was settled to continue editing? No. It seems you did do things wrong. If you don't understand that or aren't willing to admit that and therefore not willing to change, you won't be able to edit in a collaborative manner. And you always act as if it's everyone against you as if it was some sort of conspiracy.
Is he not supposed to cite a source for his claim that the information wasn’t “ledeworthy”?You keep missing the point. This is not about IJBall's edit summary. That could be taken explicitly from a policy, be based on policies, a common practice for BLPs, or even his opinion not based on anything, in which case you would've probably won the discussion easily. But you reinstated your edit, against WP:BRD. So there you
broke the rules. After commenting on their talk page and reinstating your edit again, you violated WP:BRD for a second time by not waiting for the discussion to actually unfold. After giving up on arguing with you, IJBall said in their closing statement that their position is
backed by long-standing common practice, so perhaps there is something that editors with more time here than you know that you don't. Perhaps that common practice is wrong and should be changed, but that would only be possible through discussion. — El Millo ( talk) 06:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Season 3 is only lasting 3 episodes because of Disney being homophobic. It will make the entire season rushed. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Not to mention that since the season is only three specials, you can't call it a "season". Saying that it is "ending" is personal to you. Sorry but I think your the disruptive one right now. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia. Your not a target, your making edit wars.
BaldiBasicsFan (
talk) 20:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Shut up! I will report you if you keep reverting my edits. You seem to revert my edits with no indication of me violating the rules
You have made it clear that this isn't about me being disruptive, it's you throwing a tantrum that your edits were rejected. Heck, the reason this warning is here is because you're upset that I removed your bad faith warning, which, as it is my talkpage, I am completely within my right to do. It was the only edit I made between your two warnings. You have no case.-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 20:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to think that the two of you are involved in a simple content dispute at 2022 in animation as opposed to anything deeper. To that end, here is my advice to both of you. Take some time and get yourselves calmed down and composed. Then put together a message at the talk page on the merits of your source at your position. When the other one posts theirs, take the time to read it. Engage in constructive conversation. If you can't make progress, reach out for a third opinion. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we have to work together to make it work. Cheers and happy editing. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? Look at this site:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3513500/
It said that Eric is voicing Monterey Jack in the upcoming film. That's pretty much prove enough to me.
Kevbo128 (
talk) 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Please just walk away from the thread at User talk:71.190.233.44 and, frankly, from interaction with them in general (unless it's discussion at an article talk page about content with nothing mentioned about the other editor). The IP is on final warning for their actions, and administrators will handle it from here. Don't make our task tougher by having to decide if you baited them into their next comment. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit matter of factly states something as true about me and is a personal attack (I was not trying to "grasp control", but rather end a thread that was not productive by a new editor who was unwilling to read our policies and guidelines). I mistakenly assumed this edit was an honest accident, which is why I restored the closure. Do read up on casting aspersions about other editors before you do something like that again. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see
WP:ANI#CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring. And FYI, I really think you should take a break/chill out with all the disputes. Continuing this behavior will likely result in actions you won't want to be taken.
Magitroopa (
talk) 05:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Please include an edit summary when you revert non-vandalism edits, such as here. For example, with that revert, you could have said "already documented in article" or something similar to explain why you removed that content. It helps the editor who was reverted and other editors watching that article to understand the reason the edit was undone. Without an edit summary, your revert could be viewed as blanking sourced content. A clear explanation in an edit summary contributes to collegial editing. Schazjmd (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This comment at User talk:BaldiBasicsFan was unnecessary. Up until that point, the situation was focused on the templates that were being left and not the user themselves. That comment changed the focus to the user.
WP:No personal attacks is very clear on this matter: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." — C.Fred ( talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
That's because the job is 'United States Marine' - so one would say 'X is an American retired soldier who served as a Marine' or similar. Giant Snowman 17:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
So you bother reverting the Warner Bros Discovery article while not doing the same for Discovery or WarnerMedia? You have not said you looked at my source, why are you not looking at my source. Is this all cause you hate the WarnerMedia-Discovery merger? Granthew ( talk) 05:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Volten001. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Liz Sheridan 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. The content is well referenced and relevant. You should not remove it
Volten001
☎ 22:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Please remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith and remove your message at Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series). Debresser ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Look, I don't actually want to take this to ANI, but don't you think removing good sources for their being too many of them is a bit odd? BD2412 T 01:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Just some words of advice, but I would suggest never getting yourself involved in a dispute like this ever again. You were very close to an indefinite block, and pressing issues like this may push you over the edge. Based my 3 months of marginal experience, I would try avoiding this drama as much as you can. Building trust takes time, so I would try to just accept issues like this and move on. Instead of placing 9000 words of text on talk pages, this could be better spend making more edits. This is just my advice, but perhaps I am too naive. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 05:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
That was me, apparently mobile Wikipedia does not like transferring my login from this app to the web version of the Doctor Strange 2 page. I was asking for the edit due to a slight inconsistency between superhero movie articles, but due to your timely and brief explanation I've decided not to push through with the edit. Thanks for the understanding too! GreenGrenier ( talk) 14:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: ). Thank you.
Amadeus22
🙋
🔔 19:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
TipsyElephant ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Hello CreecregofLife. I declined this as a technical move for reasons given in the edit summary. If you are not convinced, let me know or open up a conventional move discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
A new Pokemon Ultimate Journeys episode came out in Japan today. Can you add the summary to it? 2601:98A:201:8C90:0:0:0:F98E ( talk) 22:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Creecreg. I'm here to remind you just to keep your cool and not bite when someone tries to bait you with unfounded accusations as S. Marshall did. Let it go, respond simply and calmly, and mainly let others defend you, as pretty much everyone in this instance has done. Otherwise, you'll keep getting tangled in these, and becoming louder will often times just make it look as if this was a problem both of you are responsible, and make others from the outside see you both as equally in the wrong, be it in their thoughts or in their ways, instead of a one-sided problem where only one is to blame. — El Millo ( talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Might be best if you not decline requests. Thanks for the good, you do, but. . . . 15:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for tackling some of the early films. It's greatly appreciated having you adjust old URL stylings and switching from WebCitation. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted a section on NickRewind that gave more detail than it had before without giving a reason why. Wikipedia sections should have more detail than just 1-2 sentences and I provided more info. Please explain why you reverted my edit on NickRewind before trying to revert it again.
Jackthewriterguy12 ( talk) 21:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Concerns_about_edits_at_NickRewind. Thank you.
I.hate.spam.mail.here (
message me |
my contributions) 22:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
why was that reverted Muur ( talk) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife. You've changed refnames across quite a few articles, for instance this edit. The problem is that unlike that edit at times you're causing errors, it's taken 20 twenty minutes to fix the problems caused by this edit. I'm future unless you actually need to change the refname it's best not to, they can have ".com" in or be anything at all, they don't need correcting. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I know that statement wasn't quite what I had in mind, but I wanted to get it straight to the guy whose edit I reverted. (i.e. Disney does not own WBD) Maxbmogs ( talk) 21:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added some content on the Lightyear (film) article, which was reverted by you, citing a potential word limit on edits or articles on Wikipedia. I was previously unaware of such a policy and would like to ask you for more information about it, as I think it would certainly be helpful for me to learn more about such important editing policies on Wikipedia. Thanks. Tamptonato ( talk) 07:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@ CreecregofLife: Why did you revert on the The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder article? I would like to know. scope_creep Talk 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) @ CreecregofLife: Fair enough, your not answer, so it edit warring noticeboard. scope_creep Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Instead of just reverting my edits (e.g. [8]), please can you explain why you are reverting them? Per WP:REVEXP, it is best to do so in the edit summary ... but since you haven't done that, please can you explain here BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thousnadsis just provocative hyperbole.
<link rel="bookmark" href="http://archive.today/20220518155118/www.gouverneurmorrispapers.com/2019/10/gouverneur-morris-and-slavery-part-i.html"/>
-- that's where I get the book mark URL from
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 22:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)500-1300is the extreme and rare upper end; most are dozens, and some of those you hve reverted are dozens. And 500-1300 is not "thousands", which is why I ask you to drop theprovocative hyperbole. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
you still haven't proven IABot has ever done this. You only ever linked to yourssimply shows that you don't understand how IAbot works. It makes edits on behalf of the user who requests it, so [10] was an edit by IAbot in my name. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you
often edit without using an
edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in
your preferences. Thanks!
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife. I just wanted to draw your attention to Help:Citation Style 1#Language which states that the use of language codes is preferred, even for sources in English, as they assist with copying of citations across wikis. Would you be amenable to not removing them in the future please? Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
On 27 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Siragusa, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai ( talk) 21:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey – I wanted to pop in to do what I shoulda done, which is explain my edits properly. I replaced the line breaks with {{ pb}} under MOS:ACCESS, where it states "Do not ☒ use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics".
I generally remove, and replace, line breaks within Wikipedia whenever I see them for these reasons of accessibility, as {{ pb}} will simulate a visual paragraph break without messing with how content will be read out by a screenreader.
I know that line breaks are very commonly used throughout Wikipedia, but for accessibility, there are generally better options. I hope this makes sense!-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hello, I'm new here, but I saw your finale on Duncanville, and put final episode air date so you don't have to. I was just wondering if I could help you with other show on here, like episodes, air date, etc. F8nuk1jo0mp ( talk) 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I removed the spoilers in the voice cast description not because spoilers aren't allowed, but because the Plot section already goes through the entire plot of the movie, so rehashing the same plot points in Voice Cast is cluttering and unnecessary (and the Encanto Voice Cast section is hard enough to read as it is). The Cast section is usually just the character name and base description in WP film articles. Please consider re-adding the changes or otherwise cleaning up that section. Mongoose22 ( talk) 16:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Polyamorph (
talk) 05:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I haven't been involved in today's edits at the article above, but I'm just here to point out that there are only a few policies that provide an exemption from WP:3RR. Those exemptions are listed at WP:3RRNO. They are referring to situations like obvious vandalism and serious policy breaches - like BLP problems or the inclusion of child pornography. WP:CS is actually a guideline, not a policy, and talk page discussion would be the way to get to the bottom of problems like the one you are seeing.
I hope you'll take this message as it was intended - as a friendly attempt to correct a misunderstanding before it gets out of hand, not as an effort to embarrass anyone or to come off as condescending. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Looks like this went to ANI while I was typing. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Edit warring: 4th revert at Washington Commanders immediately after warning. Would be a siteblock, but in light of ongoing AN/I thread, please consider this a block from all pages *except* AN/I and your talk. Please consider that you may be wrong about what you did, and commit to using the talk page in the future instead of reverting (and I say this as someone who has a history of edit warring, it doesn't go well usually). I'm not sure why you were revert warring over {{ cite web}}, but the
|website=
parameter is usually used to denote the publisher, so the initial changes were correct. If there's something else that is worth discussing that the rest of us missed, bring it up on the article talk page once your block is over. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)I have every right to comment on my ANI reportNot really, technically now that you're site blocked, you can request someone copy your reply from here to the AN/I discussion. Tamzin was doing you a favor by trying to keep you able to do your own replies, but you literally need to slow down, not respond the way you have, and not help blow this up larger than the 3RR discussion by fueling the fire. Think carefully on how you respond from here on out. With that all being said, Facu-el Millo has given you good advice below, and I'll add to that: As regards this 3RR block, you must understand and acknowledge what you did was wrong and ideally apologize for it. No excuses. No finger pointing, own your actions. A commitment to not do it again (or commit to WP:1RR as El Millo said below) would hopefully address some of the concerns at AN/I.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "The tables are spaced this way for ease of reading." My edit does not impact the presentation of the information on the article, rather reduces the article size, which makes it easier to load on mobile devices. I also removed two non-notable wrestling names from the deaths table. The two are niche referees of a psuedo-sport. I don't think that warrants a listing on a television article. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have determined that there is consensus at the ANI complaint featuring yourself ( permalink) to impose a WP:SITEBAN by the community. Consequently, I have blocked you indefinitely. Please see WP:UNBAN for your appeal options. Thank you. El_C 07:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
CreecregofLife ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My editing had already improved in the two days that I could. I was using edit summaries way more and using the talk pages, helping other users out of their confusion. I have already apologized profusely for the mistakes I made. I am not persistently disruptive. I understand that I should get something for what I did, but considering the context and intended trajectory as placed by the complaint cited, going for such a harsh punishment is cruel and excessive, and should at the very least be drastically reduced
Decline reason:
You were site banned literally hours ago, by community consensus. It is much, much, much WP:TOOSOON to unban you. Nor does this come remotely close to what might lead to an unban. Try again no sooner than six months from today. Yamla ( talk) 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.You made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. You were edit warring with Sportsfan 1234. Polyamorph ( talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
is closed. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 04:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
A League of Their Own (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#A League of Their Own (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
The Valet (upcoming film) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#The Valet (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
As a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CreecregofLife, the timeline for a potential standard offer appeal is reset to 6 months from today.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
House Party (upcoming film) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § House Party (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Today is August 8, make sure you pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER by tomorrow and not create more sock accounts/IPs. More block evasion will reactivate the clock. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
As a result of the IP of your writing style continued as editing after a six month period per Special:Contributions/108.41.81.126, the clock for a potential WP:STANDARDOFFER was reactivated from six months from today. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 16:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This user has been
banned indefinitely from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. Administrators, please review the
banning policy before unblocking. ( block log · contributions · discussion at ANI) |
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC) |
Please stop your
disruptive editing.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Gabby Duran & the Unsittables, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 17:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
South Park: Post Covid, 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. Thank you.
Kpddg (
talk) 03:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. Given that you were named in the comment you deleted, it was especially inappropriate of you to delete it. If you don't feel it belongs, you should respond asking for another editor to delete it. If anything, by deleting it yourself you may have made the complaint appear more valid.
DonIago (
talk) 15:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, TVSGuy here, and like you, I happened to edit Wikipedia articles because sometimes there are notable things or otherwise viral. I heard you recently joined in and you are happen to be a fan of MCU series because I do happen to watch that too. And so asking are you new to Wikipedia and you learn so fast? Just asking. Thanks and hope you have a good time editing. TVSGuy ( talk) 04:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Help change colors, based on [ [1]]. Thanks you. Edmyoa ( talk) 07:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Removed with the "Moved to" in Planeta U if you did, someone will blocked from editing without further notice. User:Angel Arreguin Hernandez ( talk) 01:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It looks like you will eventually be blocked permanently. Writing unreasonable edit summaries and edit warring can only go unnoticed for a while. ภץאคгöร 18:25, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
JoanHeart (
talk) 01:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
For future reference, what I am suggesting is that you take a bit of time and try to find a compromise or solution at the talk page before jumping straight to reporting someone unnecessarily. We were able to sort this out super quickly once we had the conversation so it is actually a great example of how the system can work. Also, you stated or implied multiple times during this whole episode that you were a new editor supposedly being bullied or taken advantage of by an experienced editor which is quite disingenuous considering you have confirmed at this talk page that you have been editing Wikipedia anonymously and are not as new as your account suggests. I recommend either being more upfront about that or trying not to imply that you are a new and inexperienced editor in the future. You clearly have a good understanding of Wikipedia rules and guidelines and worked well with us during the discussion once you focused on the content rather than supposed personal/behavioural issues so I think you should be fine moving forward if you take the right lessons from this whole thing. Thanks, adamstom97 ( talk) 08:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Multiple editors have reverted you. Please do not engage in edit warring. Editors who repeatedly do so risk being blocked, as you have previously been warned. Thank you. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I see that you have reverted once again. At this point, I don't know how you can take the position that you are not engaged in edit warring. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
That’s because they didn’t read the talk page.I would not be so sure of that. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Just checking in. Are you doing alright? LittleFinn9 ( talk) 07:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand why you reverted my edit but... even in its previous form, when it was a redirect, it would have been acceptable. Now, that a LOT of information about the show is available, it now has a page. I actually only added that link to prepare the page for my split of content from various pages to create that page, which is a clearly a show in its own right. But, I am excited for the reboot/revival, even though I just finished season 1 of the original series. -- Historyday01 ( talk) 01:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry I left this message on the wrong page.
Tartar
Torte 21:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
TartarTorte. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article,
Amy Schneider, 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. You can have a look at
referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you for contributing to the article and trying to find an accurate DOB. Your efforts are definitely appreciated, however on wikipedia there are pretty strict standards on what is considered reliable or not when it comes to living people and also how much personal information of living people should be made public. If you want to discuss further please feel free to respond here and tag me by using {{
u|TartarTorte}} in your reply or {{
ping|TartarTorte}} in your reply.
Tartar
Torte 21:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't let WP:AN gaslight you. Yes, you were no doubt being trolled by LittleFinn9. I'm sorry the AN thread makes it seem like no one cares about that. Ponyo and Bbb23 are, literally, an order of magnitude or more better at identifying and dealing with socks, but if they aren't around someday, feel free to ask me for help if a suspicious new account miraculously finds your talk page. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 16:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at
Tony Hale, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
WP:BLP /
WP:DOB speak for themselves.
Toddst1 (
talk) 22:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Blazing Samurai. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 16:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
If someone attempts to turn a talkpage into a forum to debate something, the best thing to do is either ignore them or treat it as a user conduct issue (removing, warning, or reporting, as appropriate). By engaging with them, you risk going against WP:NOTFORUM yourself. In the case of your exchange with the IP at Talk:Amy Schneider, I've just removed y'all's exchange, since it didn't really have anything to do with improving the article. Also, please be aware that there are some heightened expectations of editors on the topics of gender and sexuality:
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 gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. 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.
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.
Thanks. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 01:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your last warning; as you did at
Toonturama and
Planeta U, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice by the bot/admin. (
User talk: Angel Arreguin Hernandez) 22:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
This is your last warning; as you did at
Toonturama, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
User:2603:8080:500:2c5d:a439:2e00:facf:21a 02:28, February 5, 2022(UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Fungies!. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. A non-verified Twitter is not a reliable source, and either way the creator doesn't speak for the network. Magitroopa ( talk) 05:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
If you don't start talking with respect without calling names, calling me racist, sexist and claming that everything you don't like is tantrum, I will have to report you to moderators. Try to be civil. Kanikosen ( talk) 16:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see
WP:ANI#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc..
Magitroopa (
talk) 07:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Aoidh ( talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
CreecregofLife, I'd recommend you take a break from the Pokemon RfC. What you are doing can be considered
WP:BADGERING
WP:BLUDGEONING, especially with some of those snide remarks. Leave your !vote and wait some time before engaging again in that discussion. I see a couple participants are already annoyed.
Isabelle
🏴☠️ 22:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop policing that page--thanks. Drmies ( talk) 18:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm sorry I got confused on the Peacemaker article and incorrectly reverted your edit. Glad we're both on the same page about spoilers. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Don't use any sources that base their reports on TMZ, especially not for contentious/personal claims that involve living people.
SNUGGUMS (
talk /
edits) 04:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film)? TO my knowledge Colleen has never been on the billing block, and I"m not going to count her being credited on her own poster as being on the billing block. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Re: The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power edits
I notice you are relatively new around here, so I will explain a few things to you.
1) In reference to the above edit summary I used as the section heading, the TWinkle widget is going to add warnings to the bottom of the monthly warning section (not necessarily to the end of the page, and we users have no control over that.) As a side note, this works well for most folks — as most editors don't have all the additional warnings that you seem to be accumulating this month.
2) The Twinkle notices I posted to you that you erased contained links to both the Manual of Style and the Wikipedia:List of Unreliable Sources. If you had availed yourself of these links, you may have saved both of us some time, as Metro is assuredly featured prominently on that list as a crappy source. I am also confused why you added back those other bad sources too.
3) Edit warring will get you blocked.
4) Just a personal observation: You seem to be struggling with the collaboritive aspect of editing Wikipedia, judging by what all is written above, and how you reacted to by edit. I didn't revert your edit to be an asshole. There was a definite, non-controversial reason for it. All you had to do was look at the link(s) I provided you. Instead, you chose to edit war over it. I would suggest if you work with people here (instead of what seems to be a pattern of regularly fighting with them), you'll get more of your points across. If you had looked at the number of edits I have, and number of years I have been editing here, you may have realized that our interaction may have been a learning opportunity for you. (Would it have hurt you to maybe ask on my talk page why I deleted those bad references instead of immediately starting to edit war?)
5) Most of the editors here are doing their best to improve the articles. You should pro-actively assume good faith and not negatively react to a disagreement in editing content or style. You'll make more friends, and you'll enjoy editing more.
Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 18:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like there is confusion on the way it is written. The problem with the way it is written is that there is no set length for the season (a fluid fact) and that there is an asymmetrical amount across the board. Whereas my statement is a hard fact with not much fluidity to it. GoWarriors151718 ( talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, which I'm not sure because I don't normally edit BLP articles. Per WP:BRD, if you made an edit and were reverted, you must take it to talk page, not the one that reverts you. If you revert the reversion without a clear and simple argument in your edit summary, then you've started an edit war. The warning you deleted was correct. — El Millo ( talk) 05:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
citation neededas a summary, which is incorrect because "citation needed" refers to unsourced content, not to matters of policy. That was an hour and a half before you went to the other editor's talk page ( [3]). Only one minute after going to their talk page, you again reinstated your edit ( [4]), either without waiting for an answer or without responding to the one given at that exact minute ( [5]). So no, you did not
follow protocol, according to which you should've gone to either the article's talk page or the other user's talk page right after they reverted you per WP:BRD, or reinstate just once according to WP:BRB either ammending your edit or providing a clear edit summary that may save both editors some time. You should also stop acting as if you were being treated unfairly in every conflict you are when it's you that constantly gets into trouble with different editors. — El Millo ( talk) 05:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
used to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation to a reliable source. I showed you that you didn't proceed correctly. IJBall told you
Asked, and answered. Do not WP:EWin their edit summary ( [6]) after you reverted them for the second time one minute after going to their talk page without even waiting for an answer, which is disruptive. You were finally directly called "disruptive" when you reverted for a third time ( [7]) by Amaury, who said in their edit summary:
WP:DE from disruptive user. Stop edit warring or a report will be filed against you.
Take it up on the talkpage if you disagreeand then reverted them once again saying:
Issue unresolved; don't jump the gun, which is exactly why you shouldn't have gone back and kept reverting. Discussing is for the edit–reversion cycle to stop, it's not for you to post a message and then run to start an edit war. — El Millo ( talk) 06:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t say or do a single thing wrongOh, so you stopped editing and started discussing after your edit was reverted? No. Did you actually wait until the issue was settled to continue editing? No. It seems you did do things wrong. If you don't understand that or aren't willing to admit that and therefore not willing to change, you won't be able to edit in a collaborative manner. And you always act as if it's everyone against you as if it was some sort of conspiracy.
Is he not supposed to cite a source for his claim that the information wasn’t “ledeworthy”?You keep missing the point. This is not about IJBall's edit summary. That could be taken explicitly from a policy, be based on policies, a common practice for BLPs, or even his opinion not based on anything, in which case you would've probably won the discussion easily. But you reinstated your edit, against WP:BRD. So there you
broke the rules. After commenting on their talk page and reinstating your edit again, you violated WP:BRD for a second time by not waiting for the discussion to actually unfold. After giving up on arguing with you, IJBall said in their closing statement that their position is
backed by long-standing common practice, so perhaps there is something that editors with more time here than you know that you don't. Perhaps that common practice is wrong and should be changed, but that would only be possible through discussion. — El Millo ( talk) 06:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Season 3 is only lasting 3 episodes because of Disney being homophobic. It will make the entire season rushed. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 13:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Not to mention that since the season is only three specials, you can't call it a "season". Saying that it is "ending" is personal to you. Sorry but I think your the disruptive one right now. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 13:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia. Your not a target, your making edit wars.
BaldiBasicsFan (
talk) 20:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Shut up! I will report you if you keep reverting my edits. You seem to revert my edits with no indication of me violating the rules
You have made it clear that this isn't about me being disruptive, it's you throwing a tantrum that your edits were rejected. Heck, the reason this warning is here is because you're upset that I removed your bad faith warning, which, as it is my talkpage, I am completely within my right to do. It was the only edit I made between your two warnings. You have no case.-- CreecregofLife ( talk) 20:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to think that the two of you are involved in a simple content dispute at 2022 in animation as opposed to anything deeper. To that end, here is my advice to both of you. Take some time and get yourselves calmed down and composed. Then put together a message at the talk page on the merits of your source at your position. When the other one posts theirs, take the time to read it. Engage in constructive conversation. If you can't make progress, reach out for a third opinion. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we have to work together to make it work. Cheers and happy editing. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Seriously? Look at this site:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3513500/
It said that Eric is voicing Monterey Jack in the upcoming film. That's pretty much prove enough to me.
Kevbo128 (
talk) 21:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Please just walk away from the thread at User talk:71.190.233.44 and, frankly, from interaction with them in general (unless it's discussion at an article talk page about content with nothing mentioned about the other editor). The IP is on final warning for their actions, and administrators will handle it from here. Don't make our task tougher by having to decide if you baited them into their next comment. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit matter of factly states something as true about me and is a personal attack (I was not trying to "grasp control", but rather end a thread that was not productive by a new editor who was unwilling to read our policies and guidelines). I mistakenly assumed this edit was an honest accident, which is why I restored the closure. Do read up on casting aspersions about other editors before you do something like that again. — Locke Cole • t • c 03:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see
WP:ANI#CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring. And FYI, I really think you should take a break/chill out with all the disputes. Continuing this behavior will likely result in actions you won't want to be taken.
Magitroopa (
talk) 05:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Please include an edit summary when you revert non-vandalism edits, such as here. For example, with that revert, you could have said "already documented in article" or something similar to explain why you removed that content. It helps the editor who was reverted and other editors watching that article to understand the reason the edit was undone. Without an edit summary, your revert could be viewed as blanking sourced content. A clear explanation in an edit summary contributes to collegial editing. Schazjmd (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
This comment at User talk:BaldiBasicsFan was unnecessary. Up until that point, the situation was focused on the templates that were being left and not the user themselves. That comment changed the focus to the user.
WP:No personal attacks is very clear on this matter: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." — C.Fred ( talk) 16:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
That's because the job is 'United States Marine' - so one would say 'X is an American retired soldier who served as a Marine' or similar. Giant Snowman 17:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
So you bother reverting the Warner Bros Discovery article while not doing the same for Discovery or WarnerMedia? You have not said you looked at my source, why are you not looking at my source. Is this all cause you hate the WarnerMedia-Discovery merger? Granthew ( talk) 05:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Volten001. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Liz Sheridan 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. The content is well referenced and relevant. You should not remove it
Volten001
☎ 22:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Please remember Wikipedia:Assume good faith and remove your message at Talk:Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series). Debresser ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Look, I don't actually want to take this to ANI, but don't you think removing good sources for their being too many of them is a bit odd? BD2412 T 01:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Just some words of advice, but I would suggest never getting yourself involved in a dispute like this ever again. You were very close to an indefinite block, and pressing issues like this may push you over the edge. Based my 3 months of marginal experience, I would try avoiding this drama as much as you can. Building trust takes time, so I would try to just accept issues like this and move on. Instead of placing 9000 words of text on talk pages, this could be better spend making more edits. This is just my advice, but perhaps I am too naive. CollectiveSolidarity ( talk) 05:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
That was me, apparently mobile Wikipedia does not like transferring my login from this app to the web version of the Doctor Strange 2 page. I was asking for the edit due to a slight inconsistency between superhero movie articles, but due to your timely and brief explanation I've decided not to push through with the edit. Thanks for the understanding too! GreenGrenier ( talk) 14:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
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. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CreecregofLife reported by User:Amadeus1999 (Result: ). Thank you.
Amadeus22
🙋
🔔 19:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
TipsyElephant ( talk) 14:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Hello CreecregofLife. I declined this as a technical move for reasons given in the edit summary. If you are not convinced, let me know or open up a conventional move discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
A new Pokemon Ultimate Journeys episode came out in Japan today. Can you add the summary to it? 2601:98A:201:8C90:0:0:0:F98E ( talk) 22:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Creecreg. I'm here to remind you just to keep your cool and not bite when someone tries to bait you with unfounded accusations as S. Marshall did. Let it go, respond simply and calmly, and mainly let others defend you, as pretty much everyone in this instance has done. Otherwise, you'll keep getting tangled in these, and becoming louder will often times just make it look as if this was a problem both of you are responsible, and make others from the outside see you both as equally in the wrong, be it in their thoughts or in their ways, instead of a one-sided problem where only one is to blame. — El Millo ( talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Might be best if you not decline requests. Thanks for the good, you do, but. . . . 15:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for tackling some of the early films. It's greatly appreciated having you adjust old URL stylings and switching from WebCitation. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 03:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi. You reverted a section on NickRewind that gave more detail than it had before without giving a reason why. Wikipedia sections should have more detail than just 1-2 sentences and I provided more info. Please explain why you reverted my edit on NickRewind before trying to revert it again.
Jackthewriterguy12 ( talk) 21:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
Concerns_about_edits_at_NickRewind. Thank you.
I.hate.spam.mail.here (
message me |
my contributions) 22:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
why was that reverted Muur ( talk) 22:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife. You've changed refnames across quite a few articles, for instance this edit. The problem is that unlike that edit at times you're causing errors, it's taken 20 twenty minutes to fix the problems caused by this edit. I'm future unless you actually need to change the refname it's best not to, they can have ".com" in or be anything at all, they don't need correcting. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I know that statement wasn't quite what I had in mind, but I wanted to get it straight to the guy whose edit I reverted. (i.e. Disney does not own WBD) Maxbmogs ( talk) 21:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I recently added some content on the Lightyear (film) article, which was reverted by you, citing a potential word limit on edits or articles on Wikipedia. I was previously unaware of such a policy and would like to ask you for more information about it, as I think it would certainly be helpful for me to learn more about such important editing policies on Wikipedia. Thanks. Tamptonato ( talk) 07:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@ CreecregofLife: Why did you revert on the The Fairly OddParents: Fairly Odder article? I would like to know. scope_creep Talk 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC) @ CreecregofLife: Fair enough, your not answer, so it edit warring noticeboard. scope_creep Talk 17:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi
Instead of just reverting my edits (e.g. [8]), please can you explain why you are reverting them? Per WP:REVEXP, it is best to do so in the edit summary ... but since you haven't done that, please can you explain here BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thousnadsis just provocative hyperbole.
<link rel="bookmark" href="http://archive.today/20220518155118/www.gouverneurmorrispapers.com/2019/10/gouverneur-morris-and-slavery-part-i.html"/>
-- that's where I get the book mark URL from
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 22:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)500-1300is the extreme and rare upper end; most are dozens, and some of those you hve reverted are dozens. And 500-1300 is not "thousands", which is why I ask you to drop theprovocative hyperbole. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
you still haven't proven IABot has ever done this. You only ever linked to yourssimply shows that you don't understand how IAbot works. It makes edits on behalf of the user who requests it, so [10] was an edit by IAbot in my name. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have noticed that you
often edit without using an
edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in
your preferences. Thanks!
Sideswipe9th (
talk) 19:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi CreecregofLife. I just wanted to draw your attention to Help:Citation Style 1#Language which states that the use of language codes is preferred, even for sources in English, as they assist with copying of citations across wikis. Would you be amenable to not removing them in the future please? Thanks. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
On 27 June 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Tony Siragusa, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai ( talk) 21:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hey – I wanted to pop in to do what I shoulda done, which is explain my edits properly. I replaced the line breaks with {{ pb}} under MOS:ACCESS, where it states "Do not ☒ use line breaks to simulate paragraphs, because they have different semantics".
I generally remove, and replace, line breaks within Wikipedia whenever I see them for these reasons of accessibility, as {{ pb}} will simulate a visual paragraph break without messing with how content will be read out by a screenreader.
I know that line breaks are very commonly used throughout Wikipedia, but for accessibility, there are generally better options. I hope this makes sense!-- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) ({{ ping}} me!) 21:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi CreecregofLife! The thread you created at the
Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Hello, I'm new here, but I saw your finale on Duncanville, and put final episode air date so you don't have to. I was just wondering if I could help you with other show on here, like episodes, air date, etc. F8nuk1jo0mp ( talk) 02:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I removed the spoilers in the voice cast description not because spoilers aren't allowed, but because the Plot section already goes through the entire plot of the movie, so rehashing the same plot points in Voice Cast is cluttering and unnecessary (and the Encanto Voice Cast section is hard enough to read as it is). The Cast section is usually just the character name and base description in WP film articles. Please consider re-adding the changes or otherwise cleaning up that section. Mongoose22 ( talk) 16:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Polyamorph (
talk) 05:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, I haven't been involved in today's edits at the article above, but I'm just here to point out that there are only a few policies that provide an exemption from WP:3RR. Those exemptions are listed at WP:3RRNO. They are referring to situations like obvious vandalism and serious policy breaches - like BLP problems or the inclusion of child pornography. WP:CS is actually a guideline, not a policy, and talk page discussion would be the way to get to the bottom of problems like the one you are seeing.
I hope you'll take this message as it was intended - as a friendly attempt to correct a misunderstanding before it gets out of hand, not as an effort to embarrass anyone or to come off as condescending. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. Looks like this went to ANI while I was typing. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 06:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Edit warring: 4th revert at Washington Commanders immediately after warning. Would be a siteblock, but in light of ongoing AN/I thread, please consider this a block from all pages *except* AN/I and your talk. Please consider that you may be wrong about what you did, and commit to using the talk page in the future instead of reverting (and I say this as someone who has a history of edit warring, it doesn't go well usually). I'm not sure why you were revert warring over {{ cite web}}, but the
|website=
parameter is usually used to denote the publisher, so the initial changes were correct. If there's something else that is worth discussing that the rest of us missed, bring it up on the article talk page once your block is over. —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 06:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)I have every right to comment on my ANI reportNot really, technically now that you're site blocked, you can request someone copy your reply from here to the AN/I discussion. Tamzin was doing you a favor by trying to keep you able to do your own replies, but you literally need to slow down, not respond the way you have, and not help blow this up larger than the 3RR discussion by fueling the fire. Think carefully on how you respond from here on out. With that all being said, Facu-el Millo has given you good advice below, and I'll add to that: As regards this 3RR block, you must understand and acknowledge what you did was wrong and ideally apologize for it. No excuses. No finger pointing, own your actions. A commitment to not do it again (or commit to WP:1RR as El Millo said below) would hopefully address some of the concerns at AN/I.
I am not exactly sure what you mean by "The tables are spaced this way for ease of reading." My edit does not impact the presentation of the information on the article, rather reduces the article size, which makes it easier to load on mobile devices. I also removed two non-notable wrestling names from the deaths table. The two are niche referees of a psuedo-sport. I don't think that warrants a listing on a television article. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 05:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I have determined that there is consensus at the ANI complaint featuring yourself ( permalink) to impose a WP:SITEBAN by the community. Consequently, I have blocked you indefinitely. Please see WP:UNBAN for your appeal options. Thank you. El_C 07:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
CreecregofLife ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My editing had already improved in the two days that I could. I was using edit summaries way more and using the talk pages, helping other users out of their confusion. I have already apologized profusely for the mistakes I made. I am not persistently disruptive. I understand that I should get something for what I did, but considering the context and intended trajectory as placed by the complaint cited, going for such a harsh punishment is cruel and excessive, and should at the very least be drastically reduced
Decline reason:
You were site banned literally hours ago, by community consensus. It is much, much, much WP:TOOSOON to unban you. Nor does this come remotely close to what might lead to an unban. Try again no sooner than six months from today. Yamla ( talk) 15:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.You made more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. You were edit warring with Sportsfan 1234. Polyamorph ( talk) 15:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
is closed. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 04:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
A League of Their Own (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#A League of Their Own (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 23:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
The Valet (upcoming film) and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#The Valet (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk) 03:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
As a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CreecregofLife, the timeline for a potential standard offer appeal is reset to 6 months from today.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
House Party (upcoming film) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 27 § House Party (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached.
Steel1943 (
talk) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Today is August 8, make sure you pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER by tomorrow and not create more sock accounts/IPs. More block evasion will reactivate the clock. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 16:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
As a result of the IP of your writing style continued as editing after a six month period per Special:Contributions/108.41.81.126, the clock for a potential WP:STANDARDOFFER was reactivated from six months from today. BaldiBasicsFan ( talk) 16:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)