User talk:Christhewalrus
Welcome Christhewalrus!
I'm S0091, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.
| To help get you started, you may find these useful: | When editing, follow the 3 Core Content Policies:
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
February 2019
[edit]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Captain America have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Your edit to Captain America
[edit]Hi Christhewalrus: I saw your most recent edit come up in my watchlist with your edit summary, User:Materialscientist was not saying you were committing plagiarism. You need to add a reliable source to substantiate your edit. This is a critical Wikipedia policy to which all editors must adhere. Please read the policy and add a source or your edit is likely to get reverted again. I hope this helps. Welcome again and happy editing! S0091 (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
July 2019
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Scranton, Pennsylvania, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Scranton, Pennsylvania shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Railfan23 (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Scranton, Pennsylvania. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Also, please read about the proper way to handle having a new addition reverted at WP:BRD.
When something is removed for lack of sources, sources are then required. See WP:BURDEN.
You may not be aware, but every single thing here must come from reliable published sources An encyclopedia is not a place to share what you know. See WP:V, WP:OR and tertiary. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
BRUH. Christhewalrus (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Scranton, Pennsylvania. John from Idegon (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Alexf(talk) 23:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sparkle1 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
You've been blocked from any further editing of Trisha Paytas
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Christhewalrus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Initially, I did not know what people meant when they asked for "secondary sources" as I believed that there were already enough in the article. I did not realize that what they meant is that there were some claims that needed to be backed up with secondary sources because they were only referenced by primary sources. I was also unaware of the policy surround BLP's, but have read over and reviewed the BLP policies and now better understand my error. I'm also aware that I acted out of line by continuing to edit war instead of utilize the talk page to discuss the matter and figure out how to improve the article. I believed I was in the right in doing so but after reviewing the BLP's policies and the Three-Revert Policy I now have a better understanding of how to handle content disputes.
Decline reason:
Great. Prove this by editing other articles for a few weeks without violating policies, then come back and request this block be lifted. Yamla (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2020 (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.
- Yamla, I agree, for what that's worth. Christhewalrus, I'm looking up on this page and see that you've been warned before for not citing sources; User:John from Idegon already did so, and your response at the time was "BRUH". It seems to me that your response now indicate you are a more mature and more responsible user at least in your responses, but that really only makes it more puzzling that you failed to uphold one of our most basic policies. I suppose I'm glad you recognize them now, and that you read the BLP; if you had done that earlier this might not have happened. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Edit warring at Instant Influencer
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Continued edit warring after two prior blocks for the same thing. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced you will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Christhewalrus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I did not "edit war", because I did not even violate the three revert rule. What I DID do, was revert edits that removed true, and factual information from an infobox. I explained my reasons via edit summaries, and my edits were factually correct and had no reason to be removed. Additionally, I reverted this user's edits because they incorrectly refereed to the show's host as a presenter, but because it is an American show, it should be "host" instead.
Decline reason:
Edit warring and the three revert rule are not the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2020 (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.
Christhewalrus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I know that, I was using it as an example to show that I hadn't even reverted that many times. But how was I "edit warring" when I clearly gave reasons for my edits through edit summaries to explain why they were necessary?
Decline reason:
Simply using edit summaries and giving your reasons for the edit does not mean you weren't edit warring. The idea is to engage the other editor in discussion on the article talk page, or your own talk pages ... not play tug-of-war with the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2020 (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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Instantinfluencer.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Instantinfluencer.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
