User talk:Renamerguy

Renamerguy, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Renamerguy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I noticed that in this edit to Alien: Covenant, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or flag potential "spoilers" in Wikipedia articles, as you did in the article Alien: Covenant. It is generally expected that the subjects of Wikipedia articles will be covered in detail, and giving a section a title such as "Plot" or "Ending" is considered sufficient warning to the reader that the text will contain revelations about the narrative. Deleting such information makes the article less useful for a reader who is specifically trying to find out more about the subject. For more information, see Wikipedia's guidelines on spoilers. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every film article I've seen has refrained from releasing any sort of plot details until a worldwide release, or a US release at the very least. I do not see why Alien: Covenant has to be different. Renamerguy (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues at play. One is spoilers. Wikipedia policy is that articles may contain spoilers: we don't censor, filter, conceal, roll up, delete, or otherwise hide spoilers, regardless of when the film is released. The second is verifiability. If a plot summary is to be included, we need to be able to verify the content. If a movie has been released, it is possible (not always free, but possible) to watch the film and get the summary that way. If a movie is not released, then the source for the plot must be a published, reliable one. If the Guardian has done a review, that hurdle is cleared. That's probably why you don't see plot summaries on unreleased movies: there isn't a reliable source to verify the plot against. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Broken Arrow killings, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Broken Arrow killings. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Jim1138 (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of DisuseKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.