User talk:Crowkid555

April 2020

Hello, I'm 75.191.40.148. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gods and Monsters (film), 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits 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. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ready or Not (2019 film), 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. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I've blocked your other account, Crowkid51. You've received warnings and continued to repeat edits that have been reverted by other editors multiple times on both accounts. You need to begin heeding the warnings you're receiving as well as paying attention to the reasons other editors revert you. Other admins: I was being lenient here but would not be opposed to anyone else blocking if they feel its already warranted. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of multiple accounts

Crowkid, I have evidence that you are using multiple accounts still. The other account edits the same things you do, with the same style and focus on reception in leads. I already have enough evidence to block you, but I'm providing you an opportunity to explain the situation and come clean. What's going on? -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, i try to use my same account Crowkid555 on my laptop but I was unable to use it as it had some issues with connection I had no choice but to use a different account. Sorry. Crowkid555 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to block your other accounts. If you make any further accounts, you'll likely be blocked indefinitely. Please stay with this one single account. If you're having trouble logging in on PC, try asking for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. @NinjaRobotPirate: as info. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Edits

Hi, I've noticed the vast majority of your edits seem to focus on summarizing the reception of video games and films; however, many of these appear to be original research, statements that are not sourced in articles, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Just to note, the lead section of an article is a summary of its most important content, and so a mention of an item's critical response in the lead must only refer to information that is outlined more extensively in the article body. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there is just one thing, the star wars squadrons page was actually true, as I was watching a review from ign saying that there are few modes, maps and squadrons in the game, and there were not a lot of modes in the game as there is only 3 modes, 2 multiplayer and 1 single player mode, the reviews in metacritic also agrees, one example came from push, who said it lacked excitement and content, and another review, gamer.nl, said that the modes are sparse. So I agree with you in some things, but this is proof of what squadrons was criticized, and it deserves to be in the page. Crowkid555 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from but regardless of whether a reliable source has given the information or not, it MUST be included and sourced in the Wikipedia article. Also, as long as it is sourced in the article body (i.e. anywhere other than the lead) then the lead will not need citations. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Crowkid555 either doesn't understand or is ignoring the advice that was given above, as he continues to make these kinds of unhelpful edits [1] [2]. Many of his recent contributions have been reverted.

Please read WP:LEAD again. Note that the lead/intro is supposed to summarize what is actually in the Wikipedia article. He isn't the only one, but the kinds of edits Crowkid555 keeps making are such a problem that WP:FILMLEAD repeats and specifically warns against doing this for film articles. You cannot summarize or add to the intro if the information is not already in the article. You must add sources and expand the article before adding to the intro. Please do add reviews to the Critical response section, but only after you have made sure the Critical response section clearly says what you want, only then can you summarize it in the intro.

If you don't start following the rules and take the advice you have been repeatedly been given you risk being blocked from editing. -- 109.76.146.100 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, some of the edits are made had sources that were true, I was unable to get them in due to some issues with Wikipedia, I'll try my best to source them and expand articles in order to make them public. Crowkid555 (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Sad to say but Wikipedia is not about the truth WP:NOTTRUTH it is what we can show using reliable sources.

Some sources are better than others, and if you can pick good sources you can save yourself a lot of trouble (and other editors are less likely to waste time arguing). WP:RSPS is a list which helps tell you pick good sources, I wish I'd known about it sooner.

When editing film articles and Variety.com or TheHollywoodReporter.com are two of the best sources you can use, they have higher standards and known to be more reliable when it comes to film information. If you want to add reviews to the Critical response section, again it helps to pick reviews from better quality sources, so critics labelled as "Top Critics" on Rotten Tomatoes or reviews from critics listed on Metacritic are more likely to be good choices.

If you have been reverted and you think the revert was wrong, then it is usually a good time to go to the Talk page and start a discussion explaining your edit and asking what you would need to do differently for it to be allowed. -- 109.76.146.100 (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Proper Citation

Hey! You recently made an edit on Super Mario Bros. 35, where you added info to the summary. However, I had to remove it for now. The summary has to sum up whats in the rest of the article, but what you added was no where to be found. If you'd like to add this edit back, please put the info (and proper citation) in reception, to prove its true. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 02:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is 1, the limited time release, in which many fans and critics expressed dissapointment by the fact it will be playable until March 31st 2021. Crowkid555 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

So there is claims. Do you have the article(s) that say so? We can then take the steps to put it in. You can copy and paste a link or the name here. Le Panini (^{Talk to}_me?) 12:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

July 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}}.  -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)