User talk:WarpSoldier

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, WarpSoldier! Thank you for your contributions. I am Srich32977 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! – S. Rich (talk) 06:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Scooby-Doo! Stage Fright because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Redrose64 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Scooby-Doo! Frankencreepy. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your test before you revert it. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Anne Frank. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'd just like to offer a couple of points, as a supplement to the above: (1) When three different editors have reverted you, you need to consider the possibility that your edit is incorrect — or in violation of site policies (such as UNDUE) — or, as in this case, both. (2) Per UNDUE, the views of tiny minorities are not included in WP articles, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the hypothesis that the Earth is flat; to do so would give undue weight to it. There is universal agreement in the historic literature that Anne Frank died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in March of 1945. Every objective source that I know of -- and indeed, every fringe source as well -- acknowledges this. To mention an alternate view that no one seriously holds is a violation of the aforementioned UNDUE. If you know of any reliable sources that call the place or manner of her death into question, please cite them on the article's talk page, and make your case for including them in the article. Thanks. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 06:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Janis Gold. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015[edit]

regarding this - sorry but no. In looking at your contributions since you started editing here, it seems that you are quite fond of the "undo" button. If you're not here to edit constructively, then this just isn't going to work. I see that you've been warned multiple times in the last month, so consider this a last warning that if you continue without addressing the problems brought to your attention - then you will be blocked. Time's up, either respond to the concerns, or face the consequences. — Ched : ? 04:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at April Fool's Day, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=April_Fools%27_Day&diff=prev&oldid=654516589 – S. Rich (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WarpSoldier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not all my edits have been vandalism. I admit, I have vandalized in the past and I apologize for it greatly. I have made constructive edits on this account though, such as: Attempting to add notable Holocaust Denier David Cole to Takimag's article, referenced that, redirected Holocaust Truth to Holocaust Denial. On one of my evading IP's I made several constructive edits: Reverted vandalism on The Fairly Oddparents main article, removed bad cleanup tag and content removal on Marble Hornets article, and was one of the first to edit CSI's article that it had been cancelled, and sourced it, although not knowing it was just a rumor. I beg of you to please just give me one last chance and let me start fresh, as I just want to edit in a better manner now. Thank you for your time and sorry for any trouble I've caused.

Decline reason:

While those edits may not have stictly been vandalism, they generally weren't helpful either. Edits done while evading your block are not persuasive. I see no reason to unblock you. Huon (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WarpSoldier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edits I aforementioned in my unblock request were absolutely meant to be helpful, regardless of how they were perceived. I acknowledged I made mistakes and I apologized for them. Why is it so hard to just give me one last chance to constructively edit? This is the only time I've been blocked, too, on this account. Please reconsider, I swear on my life I'm not going to cause anymore trouble.

Decline reason:

It is difficult to see how these edits could have been meant to be helpful, while the gross vandalism edits clearly were not. It is difficult to see you as being beneficial to the encyclopedia if unblocked. And does your unblock request mean that you have been blocked previously on another account?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.