User talk:Dcasey98

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Fantasy literature has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Fantasy literature was changed by Dcasey98 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.874742 on 2015-11-09T03:52:42+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions to Fantastic Beasts page

Hi Dcasey98!

Just wanted to check in with you regarding the changes you've been making to the Fantastic Beasts page. This change (about one character breaking up with his girlfriend at the start of the film) hasn't been sourced, which is why I've been removing it. But if you do have a source, and you're unsure of how to source it etc, let me know. I'm glad to help. Thanks!

Rob

Rmaynardjr (talk) 07:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind helping me? Here's the link:

https://www.pottermore.com/news/everything-we-have-learned-about-fantastic-beasts

I edited the page to contain the information and sourced it. In the future, feel free to leave the link in the comment when you edit the page. Thanks!

-Rmaynardjr (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (film). Elizium23 (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Your recent editing history at List of children's films 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 are 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. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring case filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dcasey98_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. Betty Logan (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of children's films. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dcasey98, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of children's films, 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) 02:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI case

A case has been filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Dcasey98_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29 in which you are involved should you wish to comment. Betty Logan (talk) 07:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for edit warring. I normally would leave a template, but I want to be extremely clear why you were blocked.

You reverted on a single page five times within 24 hours (1 2 3 4 5). That alone is reason enough for a block. They are not just "editions," those are reverts. Manually changing the page to undo another user's edits or to redo a reverted edit still counts as a revert. FilmandTVfan28 did not do that more than 3 times, and if you think I'm wrong, you need to present actual evidence instead of just accusing him of reverting 7 times.
You were continuing the edit war from your previous block, which rather indicates that you didn't learn anything from it. That's why I've made the block a bit longer than I normally would have.
Some of your actions also indicate a disregard for local and site-wide consensus, including policies and guidelines such as WP:Verifiability, WP:Identifying reliable sources, and WP:No original research. This almost left me tempted to make the block indefinite. If you come out of this block and continue the exact same behavior that got you into the last two blocks, the next block might well be indefinite.

Blocks are not political in nature, they are a result of the blocked editor's own behavior. They are not punishment, they are to prevent an editor from further disrupting the site. If multiple editors with far more experience than you are reverting, you need to stop and ask yourself if you're really in the right here. It's OK to disagree with other editors, but save it for the talk page, and be ready to give up and move on when consensus does not go your way.

After you have read WP:Assume good faith, WP:NOTTHEM, WP:OWN, and WP:Edit warring; and understand why you were blocked, you can use the following template to request being unblocked: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.}} Do not use the unblock template to try to blame other people. Do not try to defend your actions. Use the unblock template to prove to us that you know what mistakes you made and explain how you intend to avoid making those mistakes in the future. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have increased your block to indefinite because of your attempt at sockpuppetry. When you become capable of learning anything, read the above. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]