User talk:Fluffymoose

December 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Just a friendly reminder. Read WP:NPOV JOJ ^Hutton 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since multiple editors have reverted your change, if you still think the article should be changed, you'll need to discuss it on the talk page, Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. —C.Fred (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2

I notice that you have recently edited Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 and would like to make you aware that I'm seeking consensus on the article on the talk page . --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't keep re-adding "universal critical acclaim", engage on the talk page. You have already been warned about edit warring, and it would be a shame to see you blocked over such an insignificant choice of words. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for edit warring, as you did at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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. Ged UK 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussio on the article talk page you should get involved with when this expires. Don't leap back into reverting the article or you'll be blocked for longer. Ged UK 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2. 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. Murmuration (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Murmuration (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Calabe 1992 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC) They are not here to improve, they are pissing me off over using the phrase universal critical acclaim! So what if it says universal acclaim that's a really good thing and there was no need to change it! I don't understand why I'm getting into so much trouble when the other person isn't. He/she is participating in this edit war too![reply]

Notice

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Fluffymoose_disruptive_editing. Thank you. Calabe 1992 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - T P 20:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly discussion

I see from your comments on the discussion page of HP7-2 that you are an avid buff of Harry Potter. Well, I am one too. But, we don't have to get ourselves blocked for only adding the word "universal". I truly understand your point but please next time don't edit without discussing...the article has had a barrier spell--protego maxima.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protego maxima hahaha good one :)

January 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, you may be blocked from editing. Stop adding anything related to the film being "acclaimed" to the article: this is not the agreed upon wording that was discussed at length on the talk page, and it is not neutral. Your beliefs about what the page should say are not more important than the wording that a group of editors has collectively decided is in the best interest of the article. Murmuration (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, please take a breather. This is everyone's site, and if you are unable to self-manage your edits, and heed other people's opinions, and continue to think that you can impose your set of words, then we will need to impose our management. Talk pages are the place for discussion, please use them and then we proceed with the consensus and neutral point of view. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in discussions

The neutral language that you keep calling "stupid" is the foundation upon which Wikipedia has been built. It is essential that all language be as neutral as possible: we editors are not here to force our own opinions in articles, but to create articles that present a multitude of opinions and facts so that readers can form their own opinions. I'd like to remind you that you must be civil when discussing with other editors, and not shrug off suggestions as "stupid" or "unfair," and most certainly not call other editors "idiots." I'd also like to remind you that, per wp:consensus, we must all discuss, not merely offer our opinions on what other editors have said. You currently have not participated in the discussion except for to insult other editors, or repeat how "unfair" you think the change is. Murmuration (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I apologize. (Fluffymoose (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It's fine, just please try not to repeat that behaviour. I'd like to tell you that I'm sure all the people who participated in the discussion on the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 talk page are also fans of the series - why else would they watch the page? However, they all remain (for the most part) impartial. We have to comply with Wikipedia standards so that the Harry Potter articles are the best they can be. Eventually we can bring the articles to Good Article status, and then maybe even Featured Article status. Having eventually reached those two statuses, the article will draw more attention and people will see how well it was received by critics, but it's important that people make their own opinions about those reviews. Please try to participate in the discussion over at Project Film: I'm sure you have good ideas, but you have to work with us, not against us. Thanks. Murmuration (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just tell me this, why did you guys change the critical reception in the first place? It said universal critcal acclaim for the longest time and then all of a sudden you decided to change it.....? (Fluffymoose (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Just because something has been in place doesn't mean that is has to stay. This is my only contribution to the discussion so far, however, I can see that my next contribution may be to report you to ANE, as consensus is clearly against you, yet you are refusing to accept this, and keep making the changes. You should by now be aware that edit warring does not have to exceed the three-revert rule to be considered edit warring. I'm not an admin (God forbid,) and I'm also not involved, just an observation. a_man_alone (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Wikipedia ought to reflect consensus. Your recent changes to the DH2 article clearly do not. Please consider your edits carefully. As for your statement that "It said universal critcal acclaim for the longest time", this is covered in great detail here. Remember also that consensus can change. Thank you. Longwayround (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I only started it because somebody else decided to change the consensus first. So, don't blame me. (Fluffymoose (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

ANI report

I have applied for the suspension of your editing privileges for the duration of the debate. With you being a new editor we have taken a fairly soft line until now, but your actions just aren't in accordance with how Wikipedia works. I think it would be better if you sit this one out and let the Film Project decide what sort of terminology is permissable in the articles. If you want to argue your case you can do so at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Fluffymoose_reported_by_User:Betty_Logan_.28Result:_.29. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 9 days for pushing your point of view in spite of consensus and engaging in a slow moving edit war, as you did at Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:15, 4 January 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I promise i will not do it again. I just get frustrated that's all. Fluffymoose (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If so, maybe you better have a serious think about whether you can edit again without this happening. Perhaps you should edit some other topic? — Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (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 swear I won't. From now on I'll just give helpful suggestions before I do any serious editing. The whole reason this bothers me more than anything is because awards (Academy Awards in particular) are coming up and I really hope Harry Potter 8 gets nominated. And the reason I think it should get nominated is because it recieved universal critical acclaim, according to critics and wikipedia (well, wikipedia used to say that anyway). (Fluffymoose (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia used to say many things. A piece of advice from an editor who has had his own fair share of arguments (and lost most of them): Just give up. Even in your unblock request you are still going on about how the article should include your pet phrase. That is not the way to get unblocked - and is indication to a reviewing admin that you have not learned any kind of lesson. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia, and the Harry Potter universe is but a handful. Find something else to edit, and in a couple of months, maybe come back with some more experience under your belt. a_man_alone (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you, I won't edit anything whatsoever. It just gets me frustrated because they change Harry Potter 8's critical reception but not any other film's???? That just doesn't make sense to me. And also, what could I edit so i could get some experience under my belt?(Fluffymoose (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Well, you seem to be interested in films, so why not head off to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, where they could also offer advice on editing such articles. You must have seen films other than Harry Potter - why not try some of their articles? Perhaps Magic in fiction which may also have an article or two to interest you. Finally, why not try to construct a reply that doesn't include a variation on "Harry Potter 8's critical reception" - we all know your opinion on this by now, and incessant repetition will just alienate you from those wishing to help. a_man_alone (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:The End. Specifically the part about not editing in contentious areas at first. Find a calmer area of Wikipedia that you have an interest in and work there.--v/r - T P 16:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has someone been changing all the critical receptions for everyone of the Harry Potter films? Particularly; Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince. (Fluffymoose (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps if you read the edit summaries, you'd understand why? It is also incredibly ironic that you are asking this question, as it has come about as a direct result of your own initial edits: [1] a_man_alone (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were just for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, not the rest of the film series' critical reception.(Fluffymoose (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(Insert as direct reply to Fluffymoose:) True, but the results of your edits, and your refusal to accept consensus and overriding opinion, has resulted in widescale changes to dozens of (and most likely more) films. I'm not intentionally having a go at you here, but basically, it's all your fault. Nothing else previous has managed to impress upon you the importance of collaboration - perhaps the ramifications of your actions here will? a_man_alone (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is incredibly ironic, also tragic. You fought against the HP8 article and now because of you everything you fought against is happening everywhere. Sometimes things that are meant to be untouched are best kept so. The only way to revert the changes is to find a reliable source that uses the words critical acclaim or praise in relation to any movie then you may change the "positive" to "acclaim" or "praise" or as quoted in the article that you have cited.--Eddyghazaley (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i only started it because somebody else decided to change the reception. So, don't blame me.(Fluffymoose (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I can't believe you just wrote that. You still have no idea what you are responsible for - or rather you seem convinced that you are in the right and all this palaver is down to the actions of other editors. I seriously urge you to read wp:competence. a_man_alone (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'm responsible for. The whole neutral reception thing. But i didn't think anyone was going to listen to me. And god, you say "responsible for" like some sort of universal crisis. It's just wikipedia for heaven's sake. (Fluffymoose (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Harry Potter, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Shrek 2. Tgeairn (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why they changed it again. They keep changing the consense for harry potter because it's supposedly "correct" and "neutral". But if your going to do that for harry potter why not do it for everything other "critically acclaimed" film on the site? It's not fair.--Fluffymoose (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy what did i tell about your edits. In Wikipedia, your edits must be supported by references in order to avoid blocks like those; use reliable articles and cite them. Don't make stuff up. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making stuff up. And where do i go to provide my references as proof?(Fluffymoose (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Firstly, you have to succesfully appeal your block. Good luck with that. Then, when (if) you start editing again use the <ref>blah blah blah</ref>tags to add references.^[1] Adding references^[2] is basic stuff that you should understand. a_man_alone (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Example of a reference. Put your reliable 3rd party source in here. Don't forget to add "==References==" and "{{Reflist}}" if they aren't already present.
^ References aren't normally used on talk pages, but I reckon this is acceptable.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fluffymoose for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Example of a reference. Put your reliable 3rd party source in here. Don't forget to add "==References==" and "{{Reflist}}" if they aren't already present.

[2] References aren't normally used on talk pages, but I reckon this is acceptable.

[1]

[2]