User talk:Evimeader

January 2021[edit]

Please stop altering the lede of the article for The Shining. As I noted in my last edit summary this is true for virtually every film based on a book or short story. If you continue it can be seen as both edit warring and WP:DISRUPTIVE which can lead to a block. Your cooperation will be appreciated. BTW those edits are not minor and should not be marked as such. MarnetteD|Talk 17:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD already points out that Stephen King disliked Kubrick's film version for what he saw as its deviations from the novel. It isn't necessary to add personal commentary to this effect.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Shining (miniseries), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits to The Shining (film) are not an improvement and are simply putting back the edits as soon as they are reverted. Please see WP:BRD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Shining (film). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at The Shining (film), you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours 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) 01:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're blocked, but this block comes with a warning: the next block will be indefinite. As other editors have pointed out (Sundayclose, User:MarnetteD, User:ianmacm, User:CommanderWaterford, Halbared, and others), your edits are not helpful. They add superfluous information, redundant information, and useless information; they introduces errors in grammar and spelling, in wikilinking, in a whole bunch of things--all things that you could have fixed, but you didn't. So the next block, if there is one, is likely going to be for incompetence, per WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Wizard of Oz on television. Sundayclose (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at The Story of Santa Claus. Sundayclose (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nikki Cox 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly advise you to read Drmies message with your block notice above. You are on the fast track to an indefinite block. You may not think it will happen but I can assure you it will if you continue these problem edits, especially with no discussion. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Refusing to communicate is not an option. If there is something you don't understand about the problems with your edits, ask right here, right now. Otherwise that block may come sooner. Sundayclose (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I understand. Thank you!! Please let me make more edits. I make good edits. Please do not delete them. Thank you!! Evimeader (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may have good intentions (I really don't know), but you make a lot of very bad edits, as explained in the many warnings above. To avoid an indefinite block, I suggest either seeking a Wikipedia mentor to help you, or posting your edits on the articles' talk pages and waiting for other editors to review before making the edits. Sundayclose (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't complain about your edits so please don't complain about mine. Thanks!! I'd really appreciate it!! My edits are good and they make sense. I really don't act that much writing to the paragraphs any way. I will not be blocked either. Understand? Thank you!! I really appreciate it!! Evimeader (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are always true too. Evimeader (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of many editors who have complained about your edits. As long as you make poor edits, we'll do more than complain. You'll eventually get a block if you keep it up. Making "true" edits is inadequate. "True" is only a minimum requirement. They have to make sense, be notable, be written in encyclopedic English, and be reliably sourced. Most of your edits fail those standards. If you want to continue editing you need to heed warnings and improve your attitude about other editors' attempts to help you survive as an editor. So far you fail there too. Sundayclose (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I won't be blocked" won't stop a block. Do you forget that you have already been blocked for the very same kinds of edits? Most first blocks are for 24 hours. Your edits were so bad that it was 60 hours. Your defiant attitude about your problem edits in your comments here make your chances of surviving here much worse. If you would cooperate with all the editors here who have given you warnings, your chances would be much better. But with your current behavior you are on the fast track to an indefinite block. I hope that doesn't happen, but whether or not it does depends entirely on what you do from this point. Sundayclose (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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) 02:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me. I'd really appreciate it!! Thank you!! Evimeader (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock my account. I understand the rules and policy. I promise and I really want to make more edits Please. Thank you!! I'd really appreciate it!! Evimeader (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evimeader. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 41113 declined[edit]

UTRS appeal #41113 is now closed

This is a check user or oversight block. Please see your block log. The English Wikipedia unblock team is declining your unblock request and will not hear your case anymore. Your final avenue of appeal is to email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]