User talk:Internet Informant

Internet Informant, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Internet Informant! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

May 2014

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Inception, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

March 2017

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones (radio host) 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 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. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 request an unblock 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.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• I could block you for restoring the material you were edit warring over earlier almost immediately after being blocked for said edit warring. What part of "You need to discuss things on the talk page" do you not understand? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know how to respond to you directly, Ian.thomson (User talk:Ian.thomson). Has this gotten through to you? I'm still learning the basics of some of Wikipedia's more complicated features. I was just restoring information that I thought was important to the subject. And I won't do a direct, illicit restoration like that again. 12:48am, 28 March 2017 (UTC+10:00)

When someone reverts an edit you make (especially three different editors who have been here long enough to know what they're doing), you generally should not restore it right away. You should go to the talk page and address their reasons for removing it. Not what you imagine are their reasons, but what they say are their reasons. In this case, on the talk page, MjolnirPants explained that the "addition is supported entirely by primary sources" -- in other words, it is based on InfoWars itself, which does not establish further notability. Now, you could have pointed out the Guardian piece. However, MjolnirPants also raised the issue that the addition "only tenuously connected to Jones in a way which strongly implies a much more important connection" -- in other words, you would need a good source or two that explicitly blames Jones (instead of mentioning Jones as one of many popular anti-vaxxers). As MjolnirPants pointed out, our biographies of living persons policy does not allow us to say "that Jones is personally responsible for the measles outbreaks" (without plenty of good sources explicitly blaming him for it and not just mentioning him as part of a wider trend). Even if you, I, and MjolnirPants are all personally disgusted by Jones's delusional fear-mongering, we have to be sure that any statement can be defended in court with "we're just repeating what multiple reliable sources said."

Insulting MjolnirPants by accusing him of being an anti-vaxxer was not the way to go. He's here to help just as much as you or I are. Reverting the material over and over without proper discussion was not the way to go.

If you wish to add the material, find additional sources that are more explicit in blaming Jones (but be sure that they are mainstream academic or journalistic sources) and then try to work with MjolnirPants (and/or others) to try and find alternative phrasing that works with those sources. This source, while reliable for documenting the reality that there is no connection between vaccines and autism, does not mention Jones or InfoWars. The Guardian source only mentions InfoWars in two sentences out of the whole thing, and only mentions Jones as the owner of InfoWars (not as having any personal responsibility). After other users have agreed with the proposed revision, then add it.

Usually, the easiest way to write an article is to find sources first and then summarize those sources. It's harder to write an article by saying something and then looking for sources later. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why did you change "Trump" to "Drumpf" at Unite the Right rally?

How do you justify this version which changed Trump to "Drumpf"? Doug Weller talk 13:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Internet Informant. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

April 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to My Hero Academia, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. As with all other article content, categories are subject to WP:Verifiability and must be sourced. Since you added a series of categories that were not source, several of which are rather preposterous, I have reverted them. —Farix (t | c) 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Avengers: Infinity War— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Star Trek, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Star Trek. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please review the guidelines for adding categories. They must clearly be supported by the article's verifiable content. "The show is set in space" doesn't automatically mean it's a space opera. It should be easy enough to add content to the article establishing that it is thought of as such prior to adding the category. DonIago (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Contact (1997 American film). Please stop adding categories that are unsupported by the article's verifiable content immediately. Nowhere in this article does the phrase "hard science fiction" appear, which to me makes it clear that you're simply expressing your opinion. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I came here to say the same thing about this edit, which asserts a genre for a film not mentioned or sourced in the article. This violates WP:DEFINING and WP:NOR. I don't believe this is the first time I've noticed you doing this, and you're receiving a lot of warnings about this, and you seem to be unresponsive about the concerns. If you have questions, ask them, but if you do this anymore, you're going to receive a short block from editing. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I’ve upset anyone here. I’ll refrain from such outlandish editing in the future. I’m just citing what’s already been mentioned on other Wikipedia pages with reputable sources. I’m not bias. I’ll continue editing, but only minimal, grammatical ones in articles I come across. I understand your concerns and I want to keep Wikipedia the neutral accurate crowd-sourced encyclopaedia people come back to again and again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Informant (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your desire to be more careful. I think as long as you make sure that any categories you wish to add to an article are specifically mentioned in the article text you would be okay. For instance, don't add "hard science fiction" to an article unless the phrase is already contained somewhere in the article already (and, ideally, sourced). It's when you add categories that other editors can't immediately look at and say "well, yes, there's discussion pertinent to that category clearly in the article" that you run into trouble. Alternately, consider asking at the article's Talk page whether anyone objects to a category being added, and then you can add it (or not) with some level of consensus backing you up. Heck, I'm happy to do a once-over for such things as long as it's once/day or so. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I notice that you are still adding inappropriate categories to articles. Netflix original to shows that are not Netflix shows (they just have a partial distribution right), open world gameplay to articles that don’t mention this. As discussed above please stop adding these inappropriate categories. If you continue this editing pattern you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As of today, you are still doing this, as you did here. Stop adding categories to articles when the information is not covered with a source in the article itself. The term "open world" occurs zero times in the article. That means the category should not be in the article. I'll also note that the article is a featured article, so I highly doubt that they forgot to include a defining characteristic of the game to it. The term "open world" wasn't commonly used in the 1990s. Yes, the game featured a degree of freedom. But they didn't generally use this particular term. Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I see you've done this in a few more areas now two over recent days. Alright, no more chances. Anymore additions of unsourced info (including unsourced categories, which should be supported by sources per WP:DEFINING) and you're going to receive a short block. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories

As mentioned above many times pleas stop with the categories. It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don’t know how to use categories on Wikipedia. If you continue to add inappropriate categories to articles you will be A) blocked and B) prohibited from editing categories. Canterbury Tail talk 08:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Due to your deliberate ignoring of all the warnings above, and your own comment that you would stop editing the categories, I’m blocking you for your continued disruptive editing. You continue to make incorrect category edits and persist despite all warnings, so you’ve left me with no choice to prevent further disruption to the project. Upon your return I rcommend you stay away from editing categories. Canterbury Tail talk 11:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I do apologise about that; but I was just altering categories to fit the content at hand, not because of biases. I urge you, User:Canterbury Tail, unblock my account; this is totally unnecessary. And I’ve noted the previous and current warnings. I don’t wish to believe that you’re committing unintentional cyber-bullying. {{unblock|reason=Unintentional violation of editing categories; only meant to build upon solely pre-existing sources in articles I contributed to and nothing more. I believe I’m being targeted here. I’ll add extra citation with every change I make from now on if that will suffice. I never mean to bend contexts on things I write or contribute to.}} 2:05, 21 May, 2018. (UTC)

Can you explain your action in this edit? Do you know why you were reverted? We need to know you’re aware of how these categories work. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No; I don’t know why I was reverted there. I’m assuming that I added a redundant category to the already present ‘Male Bisexuals’ Category? I thought LGBT was a better categorisation, a more publicly accessible and understandable label. It won’t happen again. 12:20, 21 May, 2018. (UTC)

The article supports him being a male bisexual. Fictional LGBT characters is a higher level category of which Bisexual male is a subcategory and much more specific. Since he’s identified as a bisexual male it makes no sense to put him in a general category of LGBT. We know he’s not a lesbian, don’t think he’s transsexual, are sure he’s bisexual, so we put him in the specific category not a higher level general category. Categories are organized like trees with the branches getting more detailed as the go down. There is a category for countries, then categories under that for continents and the actual countries put under the continent category not the countries category. I suggest you spend some time looking into this and seeing how categories fold and get more specific.

Additionally note that most franchises have a master are gory that contains things like media franchise category so it isn’t needed to be added to individual articles. Canterbury Tail talk 10:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And I think this touches on another troublesome area of your editing, Internet Informant. Obviously, the continued ignoring of WP:DEFINING and unsourced content additions (like categories) are the core issue and reason for much of your warnings and blocks. (Not bias. You keep bringing that up. No one is accusing you of bias. They're accusing you of not having sources to back up your additions.) But beyond that - an awful lot of your edits are just tinkering with things that aren't broken, often times making wording worse. Canterbury Tail is correct in their assertion that your category changes were not an improvement. A number of your edits on Sonic related articles, like Sonic 1 or Sonic Xtreme, have been like this too, where you tweak the wording, only to have editors tweak it right back as "not an improvement" or "worse". When your block expires, you may want to rethink your approach to editing Wikipedia, as an awful lot of your edits are being seen as unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Understood. I don't mean to apply pointless edits, I just mean to clarify on certain things and I don't mean to muddle the wording of the articles I contribute to. Once again, I apologize for the inconveniences. 00:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Blocked

I can't believe, after all the instructions, warnings, and blocks, that you would go and make this edit. This makes zero sense. It is a film, not a meme. Your continued bad judgement regarding categories is very disruptive. You are blocked for 2 weeks. When it expires, I recommend staying away from categories altogether, as you clearly do not understand the basics of how they work (like WP:DEFINING.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Internet Informant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #22115 was submitted on Jul 18, 2018 16:55:42. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your talk page isn't locked from editing - you can still edit here - so there's no reason to use UTRS. You just need to use the Template:unblock like before. That being said, as many warnings and blocks you've received over this, I can't imagine a valid unblock request at any avenue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Changing Metacritic consensus

"Must Play" is not a consensus or qualitative summary given by Metacritic, we only include the consensus/qualitative summary as per manual of style. Also, we tend to keep scores out of the prose. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Internet Informant. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blake's 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gareth Thomas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Captain Marvel / Shazam

Did you mean to put this edit in the old section? There's a current discussion going on about a potential move in the bottom section. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for the reminder. Anyway I believe the article is separate to the copyright problems of the subject. The title should be written as 'Captain Marvel (DC Comics)/Shazam!' I truly believe it's that simple a change and respects the old and present history of the character. Internet Informant (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate categories

Your recent edit to Palpatine was inappropriate. That article is about a fictional character, so it cannot be added to Category:Internet memes since that article is not about an Internet meme. I see you have been repeatedly warned and blocked in the past for doing exactly this. Please stop, or it is likely you will be blocked again. Railfan23 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Railfan is correct, this is the same sort of edit that got you repeatedly warned and blocked on 2018. If you do this anymore, your account will be blocked again. Sergecross73 msg me 10:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

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 guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Internet Informant. Thank you. JOEBRO64 19:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS

Regarding this, it's a no, per WP:Reliable sources and WP:MEDRS. If you want to change the rules on these matters, I suggest you go to those guideline talk pages and propose that. Otherwise, I will take this matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or bring WP:Med into it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Motion Picture Association has been nominated for listification

Category:Members of the Motion Picture Association has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Hello, I'm CastJared. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Last of Us (TV series), 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CastJared (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Bugs Bunny Rapist

this link explains the situation with bugs bunny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enRM2TifKls Bringeroflies (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)