User talk:King Crimson the Third: Difference between revisions

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)

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

• Sony Pictures divisions
• About The Orchard

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]

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]

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]