User talk:Anger0104
Anger0104, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Anger0104! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC) |
March 2017
[edit]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Death Note (2017 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thanks. TheDeviantPro (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Death Note (2017 film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Any additions of content in Wikipedia articles must be supported with references from a reliable source. Bluesphere 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Death Note (2017 film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Widr (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
An attempt to help clarify the reasons for editors objecting to your editing
[edit]Hello, Anger0104. I am sorry to see that you have been blocked from editing. It seems to me that the messages above have not made it clear enough to you what the problems with your editing are, so I am writing this note in the hope it may help you to understand better why other editors have objected to your editing. Seeing a couple of messages warning you about the need for sources, plus one very vague one about "disrupting" Wikipedia with no explanation as to what that meant, you can't be blamed for thinking that the lack of sources in your editing was the only problem, whereas in fact it was neither the only nor even the main problem.
Replacing a mention of "accusations of whitewashing" with a mention of "the blatant whitewashing" changes the nature of the Wikipedia article from an account which neutrally reports that some people have suggested there was whitewashing into an account which expresses the view that there was whitewashing. Likewise "These casting choices are an especially disheartening choice" is expressing a point of view. Wikipedia policy is that an article must be written from a neutral point of view, and people who edit Wikipedia articles must refrain from using those articles to publish personal opinions. I see that in one of your edit summaries you wrote "i am simply expressing the communities dislike of the whitewashing that occured", but Wikipedia is not a platform for people to express dislike or like of anything. If you wish to publicly express "the communities dislike" of what has happened, you are perfectly free to do so, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it.
In principal, all Wikipedia content should be provided with reliable sources so that it can be verified, but in practice the kind of objections to unsourced content that you have seen usually occurs only if the content, as well as being unsourced, is also controversial in one way or another, and I think it would have been more helpful if that had been explained to you earlier, but I hope my explanation now will help to clarify the matter for you.
The matter of edit warring, however, is a different matter. You were given a very clear warning about that, but you persisted. If we simply allowed editors to keep reverting to their own preferred version of an article over and over again, every time two or more editors disagreed about content of an article there would be an unhelpful mess of repeated reverts back and forth until eventually one or the other would give up, meaning that the most stubborn editor would eventually get his or her way, irrespective of the merits or demerits of his or her version. Clearly, that would not be helpful, and so we don't allow it.
At present you are blocked from editing for just 24 hours. I hope that doesn't put you off contributing to Wikipedia for ever, and after the block is over you are very welcome to contribute, but please bear in mind that use of Wikipedia as a soapbox to express opinions is not acceptable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' noticeboard
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HPfan4 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)