|
Many editors have come to your talk page to commented / complain about your lightning edits to hundreds of articles in a questionable quest to remove certain phrases that you don't like. You continue to perform these edits, and you've removed dozens of comments and warnings from other editors from this talk page, I suppose in the mistaken belief that wiping it regularly will cover up your continued habit of making mass edits with no discussion. (It's all there in the edit history.)
I strongly suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on consensus, and perhaps the three revert rule. Your stubbornly non-collaborative behavior pattern is not helpful, and it will eventually get you blocked if you don't cut it out. Zeng8r ( talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Fronticla. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you've been removing mentions of cult followings in films. Most of the time, this is unsourced and should be removed. However, when it's sourced, you should not remove it. For some films, their cult following is what has made them notable. In other cases, their cult following is so strong and vocal that reliable sources have dedicated coverage to the phenomenon. This sourced information should not be removed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 11:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:FILM, which is what you should have done it once you were reverted. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Psychotronic Man. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Sam Sailor 21:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Near Dark.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
M*A*S*H (TV series). 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Begoon 23:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why you are accusing me of WP:OWN of the W. A. Hewitt article, when I have only made two edits to it, nor am I the primary editor of the article. Flibirigit ( talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
M*A*S*H (TV series). 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Begoon 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Burzynski Clinic, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Guy (
Help!) 23:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Guy (
Help!) 23:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Kroll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You've made Bold Edits, they are reverted, now discuss. Article by article. Look forward to working with you. -- Green C 01:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You can address these concerns within the context of the subject area of each article. -- Green C 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Fronticla - you made a bunch of bold edits, and I reverted them with a notice above concerning WP:BRD. You chose to ignore my post and not respond and revert dozens of edits, engaging in a mass edit war (one example of many). I'm pinging User:NinjaRobotPirate to ask for their help on what should be done next, as I feel this is now more than edit dispute and disruptive behavior. -- Green C 13:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Green
C 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Fronticla ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am a good editor who has done nothing but improved articles. I do not deserve to be blocked indefinitely. I fixed many articles with significant POV issues. All within the WP guidelines. I explained this through my edit summaries. Just because a few stray editors do not understand WP policy does not mean I was wrong or that my edits should be blindly reverted. Please unblock me. Thanks. Fronticla ( talk) 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not address the concerns raised above. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (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.
|
Many editors have come to your talk page to commented / complain about your lightning edits to hundreds of articles in a questionable quest to remove certain phrases that you don't like. You continue to perform these edits, and you've removed dozens of comments and warnings from other editors from this talk page, I suppose in the mistaken belief that wiping it regularly will cover up your continued habit of making mass edits with no discussion. (It's all there in the edit history.)
I strongly suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on consensus, and perhaps the three revert rule. Your stubbornly non-collaborative behavior pattern is not helpful, and it will eventually get you blocked if you don't cut it out. Zeng8r ( talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Fronticla. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you've been removing mentions of cult followings in films. Most of the time, this is unsourced and should be removed. However, when it's sourced, you should not remove it. For some films, their cult following is what has made them notable. In other cases, their cult following is so strong and vocal that reliable sources have dedicated coverage to the phenomenon. This sourced information should not be removed. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 11:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:FILM, which is what you should have done it once you were reverted. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be
blocked from editing. Thank you.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
The Psychotronic Man. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Sam Sailor 21:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at
Near Dark.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
M*A*S*H (TV series). 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Begoon 23:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please explain why you are accusing me of WP:OWN of the W. A. Hewitt article, when I have only made two edits to it, nor am I the primary editor of the article. Flibirigit ( talk) 22:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
M*A*S*H (TV series). 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Begoon 02:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Burzynski Clinic, did not appear constructive and has been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Guy (
Help!) 23:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Guy (
Help!) 23:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jon Kroll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Producer ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You've made Bold Edits, they are reverted, now discuss. Article by article. Look forward to working with you. -- Green C 01:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
You can address these concerns within the context of the subject area of each article. -- Green C 01:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Fronticla - you made a bunch of bold edits, and I reverted them with a notice above concerning WP:BRD. You chose to ignore my post and not respond and revert dozens of edits, engaging in a mass edit war (one example of many). I'm pinging User:NinjaRobotPirate to ask for their help on what should be done next, as I feel this is now more than edit dispute and disruptive behavior. -- Green C 13:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
Green
C 14:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Fronticla ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am a good editor who has done nothing but improved articles. I do not deserve to be blocked indefinitely. I fixed many articles with significant POV issues. All within the WP guidelines. I explained this through my edit summaries. Just because a few stray editors do not understand WP policy does not mean I was wrong or that my edits should be blindly reverted. Please unblock me. Thanks. Fronticla ( talk) 19:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This does not address the concerns raised above. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla ( talk) 20:07, 21 June 2018 (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.