User talk:Meadyforzbs

Welcome

Hello Meadyforzbs and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm AndrewvdBK, one of the many editors of this great website. I've posted this just to give you some useful advice and help you to settle in. You'll find that Wikipedia is much more than just articles and that there are many areas in which you can help out.

If you want to create an article, I would suggest using the Article Wizard. It will guide you through what you should do to write a great first article. To learn more about editing articles, this page will tell you all you need to know.

To learn more about the fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates, read about the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia. They should help you to understand exactly what the website stands for.

You may not want to jump straight into editing and writing articles, which is perfectly understandable. The Sandbox is available for anyone to experiment in. You can even create your own sandbox if you wish.

If you want, you can upload images to Wikipedia. However, you will have to know about the image use policy if you are going to upload images. This is largely due to copyright issues, which Wikipedia takes very seriously.

It is important to be civil at all times and to respect the views of other users. Etiquette is a fundamental part of Wikipedia. Remember, the success of Wikipedia is down to teamwork and cooperation.

I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia - it can seem very confusing at times, but you'll find that most people are more than willing to help you if you need it. The longer you spend on Wikipedia, the more you'll learn about how it works. If you do need help, you can contact me by leaving a note on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Alternatively, you can add the code {{helpme}} to your user page and someone will come along to offer you assistance.

One last thing - remember to sign all your posts by typing 4 tildes (~~~~). This automatically inserts your username and the time and date of the post.

Good luck and happy editing! AndrewvdBK (talk)

AndrewvdBK (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Garfield and Friends, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 04:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Doug episodes. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. An IP was recently blocked for making date changes on this page, changes you seem to now be making. Please provide sources before you make factual changes, or at least an explanation. I see you've also been warned for similar additions before. Please do not continue to do so. Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after looking at your changes I don't think you're linked to the previous IP that was adding specific dates. However, you do a lot of date fiddling on cartoon articles, often without explanation or sourcing. Please add sources or an explanation when you make these changes. Shadowjams (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The airdates for the 1991-1994 "Doug" episodes were listed by Nick on iTunes. Unfortunately, there is no such source for the Disney episodes.--Meadyforzbs (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of The Jetsons episodes. 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. Danger ^{High voltage!} 00:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Angry Beavers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of The Jetsons episodes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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.

Kuru (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of editing the Jetsons page.--Meadyforzbs (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is relevant. Kuru (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring on The Angry Beavers. Any admin can unblock when editor agrees to stop edit-warring dates into articles and to provide sources for all dates changes included in articles.. 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.

—Kww(talk) 00:58, 21 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think that this is entirely fair. The show was cancelled in 2001, but I brought up TV Guide's website mentioning episodes first airing in 2003 and 2006. The other person failed to mention ANY reliable sources at all. And still hasn't. They didn't listen to any of my arguments. I tried to compromise by removing all the dates from the episode list, but they just reverted that. I know that I'm not supposed to mention anyone else in an unblocking argument, but I can't think of any other way around it. That person tried to make it seem like I was a vandal, but I'm not. If you'd look over my edit history, you'd see that maybe half of it is reverting vandalism (actual vandalism or false information). Meadyforzbs (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring. However, as Kww stated in his or her block notice above, this block will only remain in force until you provide a commitment to not edit war and provide reliable sources for your changes. Please take the time to read WP:RS and WP:EDITWAR before posting any further unblock requests, and when you ask to be unblocked please provide commitments to abide by these important policies. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 April 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.

Are you implying that TV Guide isn't reliable? Look, there aren't a lot of reliable sources when it comes to airdates of this show. Since it was a children's cartoon show, there were no episode listings in newspapers, for example. In addition, very few people were keeping track of the actual airdates. This is why there is a lot of misinformation on the internet. This is obviously not unique to The Angry Beavers. Even after mentioning the TV Guide link, all my edits were still reverted for no apparent reason. --Meadyforzbs (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we are saying is that it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong: you were adding material over and over, despite the fact that the change was being removed by multiple editors. That's edit warring. It's unacceptable. Until you agree not to do it again, your block will remain in force.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it didn't matter if I was right or wrong, then why remove it? And no one has mentioned any reliable source that says otherwise. --Meadyforzbs (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't seem to grasp is that you were wrong to keep adding it when multiple editors removed it. That would be wrong even if you 100% believe your edit to be correct and all of your opponents to be wrong. It's edit-warring. It isn't permitted. Editors that do it are blocked until they agree to stop. Some are never permitted to edit again. Some agree to stop, and are unblocked. It's your choice as to which group you belong.—Kww(talk) 02:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]