User talk:Andrewwikiedit

December 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to NCIS: New Orleans, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 09:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Please don't simply revert other editors without explanation. If your edits are reverted, discuss the issue with the other editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

Contrary to your assertion in this edit summary, it is indeed a requirement that genres be sourced. This is documented at Template:Infobox television/doc#Attributes and was the subject of a Request for comment in August/September 2014. The result of the RfC, which is archived here, was "Consensus favors deleting the Format parameter and requiring the Genre parameter to be reliably sourced.'". --AussieLegend (✉) 03:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Walking Dead (TV series). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Chamith (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Walking Dead (TV series) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014–15 United States network television schedule 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. AussieLegend (✉) 04:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your fourth revert to The Walking Dead (TV series), and this is your fourth revert to 2014–15 United States network television schedule. Would you like to undo these edits yourself? —C.Fred (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Walking Dead (TV series). If you think the article needs improved, discuss the matter at the talk page. Edit wars don't solve anything, and disrupting the article to make a point accomplishes even less. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to be clear, you may not make more than three reverts in 24 hours, regardless of which account you use to make them. It's pretty clear that you are also behind the TheTVeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring with multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

December 2014

Your addition to Slednecks has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (✉) 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewwikiedit. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewwikiedit. Multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Any contributions made while evading blocks or bans can be reverted or deleted without discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have evaded your block by editing without logging in, the block has been extended to indefinite. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]