The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, MustTryHarder. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Could you please take it easy with some of your edits? You have a habit of going through and—for want of a better word—gutting the article. I have had to read your paragraphs several times to make sense of them because they are so devoid of detail. Take this recent edit about the Boyle/Hodge script, for instance. Given that Boyle and Hodge left the film because of differences over the script, don't you think that some detail of what they planned might be relevant to the article? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't go deleting warnings like this, especially when you dismiss it the way you did. 3RR is taken very seriously and if you were to be referred to the admins for it, they wouldn't take kindly to your attitude. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 22:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history 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. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2020 (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).
Not sure why this block is indefinite. I was logged out when first admin contacted me to undo an edit as I went 3RR rule in a few minutes. Next I am blocked for sock puppetry by another admin. I'm entitled to more than one account to edit other articles (not the same article). If I'm being "stalked" by editors who have a history of intimidation it makes editing other articles difficult. I have not done anything illegitimate other go over the 3RR rule. If you look at the history of my edits they are constructive and collaborative. There is one editor on the page I am focussed on that appears to have a great deal of OWNership and harrases other editors and chases them away with their compulsive behaviour. This block is the result of that editor's behaviour. Indefinite blocks are for accounts that are being destructive. There is no history of that on this account. This is a punitive block rather than preventitive. MustTryHarder (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2020 (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.
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).
The block on the previous account was indefinite. So how is it to be lifted? My request was to to look at this account. Where is the evidence that MustTryHarder, which is a two year old account, been destructive? My edits have been constructive. The guidance says admins must not be disparaging or punitive. "You are not welcome here" appears to be disparaging. MustTryHarder (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2020 (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.
As this user is not eligible for unblock consideration here, I have revoked talk page access. An unblock request can be made on the original account, where this user will have to account for approximately two years of violations of WP:SOCK and WP:EVADE. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
