User talk:Johnsonjack50

January 2015

Hello, I'm Dewritech. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to A Season for Miracles because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Dewritech (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Novocaine (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Dewritech (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnsonjack50, if you would like to nominate an article in Wikipedia for deletion, please follow the processes listed here. Don't remove large portions of the article. Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion

I'm restricting your ability to nominate Articles for Deletion. If you wish to nominate any article for deletion, you are now required to contact an administrator first (it need not be me), detailing your reasons for nominating the Article(s) you believe should be deleted. If you fail to do so, you are liable to be blocked. Nick (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Rocky V 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: Rocky V was changed by Johnsonjack50 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.875651 on 2015-01-19T16:17:28+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnsonjack50. You have new messages at Talk:Dr. T & the Women.
Message added 18:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Johnsonjack50. You have new messages at Talk:Laura Dern.
Message added 18:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

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". You are marking some of your edits as being minor when they do not seem to be. Please refer to the Help:Minor edit article for further information about this issue. Shearonink (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Competence issues

Could I ask that you read through Wikipedia:Competence is required and engage with editors like Shearonink who are editing the same articles you are. You're currently creating a bit of a mess that's taking a bit of time to clean up, taking us away from other maintenance and writing work. Nick (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Johnsonjack50, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Laura Dern. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Laura Dern. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Shearonink (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Laura Dern 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 get 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.
Please explain on the article talk page why you feel those two films should be removed from Laura Dern's filmography. Your edit summary "Those Films Have To Stay Off The List Because Of A Lack Of Ratings & A Violation Of Governmental Authority." makes zero sense. If you blindly revert one more time, you will be blocked for edit warring. Tabercil (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tabercil (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Laura Dern. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Laura Dern, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 14:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Laura Dern, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You keep making reference to "A Lack Of Ratings & A Violation Of Governmental Authority" in your edits. Please spell in further detail immediately what that means either on this page or on the Talk:Laura Dern otherwise you risk being blocked permanently from editing for vandalism. Tabercil (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Laura Dern. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. Tabercil (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you can still edit your own Talk page during this block. I strongly urge to explain in detail here why you are insistent that these two films should be removed from Laura Dern's filmography. Might it be that English is not your first language? Tabercil (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2015 (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/Johnsonjack123, 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.

ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Johnsonjack123 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 19:53, 2 March 2015 (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).

Johnsonjack50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Johnsonjack50 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Log into your original account and make a new unblock request there. PhilKnight (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2015 (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 Can Guarantee You That I Am Done With Abusing My Accounts.I Needed My Account To Have My Email Address & The Other One Didn't Have It. Johnsonjack50 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)johnsonjack50Johnsonjack50 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My New Plan Is To Leave Everything Alone & Alert You If A Mistake Was Made.

I Can Guarantee You That I Am Done With Abusing My Accounts.I Needed My Account To Have My Email Address & The Other One Didn't Have It.This Is The Only Account That I Plan On Using.