User talk:DiscoSlasher

Welcome!

Hello, DiscoSlasher, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page The Void (2016 film), have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! HaeB (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo Rabbit

Take your issue of country of production to the talk page before we get into an edit war. Furthermore, Fox Searchlight doesn't distribute films since this year - now only Disney does and Searchlight is now a production company. Daerl (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted sourced information at least three times to make the page as you want it to be. Stop this and take it to the talk page first.

Your recent editing history at Jojo Rabbit 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
refusal to take the issue to the talk page and removing sourced information Daerl (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Are you afraid of the dark? (2019 miniserie) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Are you afraid of the dark? (2019 miniserie) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you afraid of the dark? (2019 miniserie) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 23:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Are you afraid of the dark? (2019 miniserie). Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at DiscoSlasher 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have repeatedly added unsourced content to Jojo Rabbit for the last week, and despite being reverted by two editors you have continued to do so without engaging discussion. You ignored the discussion at Talk:Jojo_Rabbit#Country_of_production so I have started a new one at Talk:Jojo_Rabbit#Production_companies_and_country_of_origin going into greater detail about the problems with your edits. I strongly urge you to join the discussion and not to revert again. Betty Logan (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Emiliogogo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DiscoSlasher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added correct information about my editions using references, but I was blocked. I'm working to fix some Wikipedia mistakes, I need be unlocked, please.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DiscoSlasher (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I added correct information about my editions using references and also I delete fake or wrong info adding correct reasons, but I was blocked and accused of vandalism when I was trying to clean vandalized articles. I'm working to fix some Wikipedia mistakes, I need be unlocked, please. My editions always have external and trust links about the change I uploaded.

Decline reason:

Your block request completely fails to address the actual reason for your block, which is abuse of multiple accounts. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I added correct information about my editions using references, but I was blocked. I'm working to fix some Wikipedia mistakes, I need be unlocked, please.