User talk:King Crimson the Third

King Crimson the Third, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi King Crimson the Third! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to What a Cartoon!. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, List of box office bombs, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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, as you did at List of Paramount Pictures films, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again added content to an article with falsiified sources. As far as I am concerned this is vandalism of the worst kind, because you are attempting to deliberately deceive readers into believing the content is factual and verifieable when this is not the case. If you do this again I will have no choice but to bring your conduct to the attention of administrators. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Universal Pictures films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Trivialist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thanks. Trivialist (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bodies (Drowning Pool song). Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned repeatedly that your editing is disruptive. You seem to have either ignored the warnings or not understood them. In any case, you did not respond (by either changing your editing or asking for clarification).

You have been adding Category:Obscenity controversies in film to dozens of films, often despite having others reverting your addition. Categories on articles must be sourced. None of your additions were and many of them made no obvious sense. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:73.47.228.51, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STOP BLANKING. That's all. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't blanking User talk:73.47.228.51 talk page. What I was trying to do is asking him to stop reverting and/or vandalizing edits from major film studio. He was vandalizing the talk page, not me.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the opposite of blanking. No, they were not vandalizing the talk page (don't know why you're assuming it's a man), you were and you better not do that again. You also abused the word "literally", and falsely claimed there was some death threat. Next time, try not to patronize other editors by repeating the same passive-aggressive message again and again, and if there's vandalism, report it to an administrator. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand. Thanks.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks. You saw I blocked the editor. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daron Nefcy (October 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Needs more detail on the subject and outside sources. Right now she only has that one show so it is a redirect to the show.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Daron Nefcy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Daron Nefcy, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Autodesk Maya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Death Race (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) 09:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, King Crimson the Third. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nickelodeon Animation Studio, 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Avatar: The Last Airbender, 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on The Wild Bunch. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect additions[edit]

Hello King Crimson the Third. Your recent addition to Shochiku stating that it is the oldest film studio in Japan is incorrect. Although the company is old, it did not start producing films as a studio until 1920. This information is cited to reliable sources by established experts such as Jasper Sharp and Isolde Standish. (In fact, there was already a sentence in the article which stated this). I have removed your edits to other studio articles in which you've also based additions on this false information. Please avoid adding misinformation or unsourced statements to articles. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Braindead (film). While there is discussion of the gore in the film, there's nothing in the article to suggest that there was any controversy regarding the content of the film. Given your recent editing history, I feel compelled to issue a strong warning in this case. Please consider your next edits more carefully. DonIago (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Autodesk Maya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tropic Thunder. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. StaticVapor message me! 23:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Orchard | Major film studio[edit]

Hi. I believe you're the one who added The Orchard at Major Film Studio? Look, just because the studio released films doesn't mean it's not part of the Sony Pictures Motion Picture Group, the SPMPG consists of Columbia Pictures, TriStar Pictures, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Animation, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Sony Pictures Classics, and Sony Pictures Worldwide Acquisitions. The Orchard is a unit of Sony Music. The same goes for Provident Films and that too is part of Sony Music.

King Shadeed April 12, 2019 at 2:21 EDT

The Orchard would be allowed if it was theatrical film production company, however the company was sold back to 1091 Media.variety. Spshu (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at Major film studio 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 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 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.
Stop adding TV and streaming units, the article is about theatrical major film studios. You have also been directed to the talk page. The article was express page protected due to your failure to come to the talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Film Studio edit warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at Template:Film Studio 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 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 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.
Stop adding every production company you know. You have also been directed to the talk page. The article was express page protected due to your failure to come to the talk page. Spshu (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello King Crimson. It is possible you don't have prior experience with filing at WP:AN3. In particular, you provide no link to any previous attempt to resolve the dispute. Do you think you could explain, in 500 words or less, what the difference of opinion is between you and Spshu? You could add this to the edit warring report. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for edit warring at Template:Film Studio per the result of your complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You are risking a block the next time you revert this template, unless you have obtained a prior consensus either at Template talk:Film Studio or at WT:FILM. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blinx: The Time Sweeper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eidos (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) 12:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your future with the "development hell" article[edit]

Please note the most dedicated write-up in this article's already too-long list of examples is Deadpool, and that's because, whatever I think of the movie, it's a uniquely relevant example for the article, as Deadpool was in development for over a decade before pre-production began, then enjoyed the highest-grossing opening weekend for an R-rated movie in history, something unmatched by any other example of the phenomenon the article discusses. Now, compare your attempts to edit that article with that write-up. Whether or not you understand exactly what a Wikipedia article is, and how limited in scope it should be, you're adding to a list of examples that are there solely to inform on the topic of the article. Your additions are each running two to four times as long as the Deadpool entry, an entry that is, again, uniquely relevant in a way none of yours are. I'll be frank: what you keep writing, and other editors keep pruning away, reads like an attempt to mimic entertainment reporting by way of apologia for the people behind the productions that interest you (and I do mean you, as their relevance to the article is impossible to assess given how you're writing about them). The future process for that article will be to prune it down, not add to it. Please start a blog if you want to get into, or pretend you're getting into, music journalism. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why you have to consistently censor Dick Clement's first name considering his name is short for Richard.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for continued edit-warring at Template:Film Studio, and refusal to discuss disputed edits, despite multiple warnings. If you continue such conduct after this block ends, future blocks will be longer or even indefinite. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major film studio 3RR warring[edit]

Your recent editing history at Major film studio 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 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 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.
You have been direct to the talk page previously. Spshu (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(checks block log for Spshu) I play the Uno Reserve Card. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man.--King Crimson the Third (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:King Crimson the Third reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Just because you don't technically violate 3RR, does not mean you can't be sacntioned for edit warring. I find your warning to another user about 3RR while reverting them (a third revert for you) to be especially ironic. Please draw some lessons for this and do better next time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 00:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a user called Spshu should also be blocked for edit warring multiple times. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of theatrically released Lionsgate films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Red 2 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 20th Century Fox Animation, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. And stop edit warring too. Your next block will be INDEFINITE should this keep up. IanDBeacon (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you show no interest in explaining your edits or discussing them on the talk page will make it very easy for the next administrator to consider an indefinite block, as IanDBeacon suggests. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#20th Century Fox Animation--King Crimson the Third (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

God gave us edit summaries and talk pages for a reason. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, after all that edit warring, and not a single explanation, and a series of warnings, you go right back to edit warring without a single explanation; besides, Spshu is correct, that Free Library link, whatever that's supposed to be (Business Wire? a website for press releases?), goes nowhere. I've only had one cup of coffee so I'm not going to block you indefinitely, but if you do not understand why your behavior is unacceptable then maybe a NOTHERE or CIR block is next. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]