User talk:TheRoD1988

September 2011

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2011 (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 Marvel Comics, you may be blocked from editing. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Silver Age of Comic Books, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cameron Scott (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, removing reliably cited quotes by academics and historians based solely on your personal opinion as you did at Marvel Comics and graphic novel, you may be blocked from editing. 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Tenebrae (talk)

The edits you made to Marvel Comics and Graphic Novel have been reverted. Per WP:BRD, if you still take issue with the content of the articles, I advise you to raise your concerns on the articles' discussion pages. Re-reverting is considered disruptive editing and you maybe blocked from editing. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, in regards to your comments in your edit summary ("the notion that Marvel comic books are more mature than DC comic books is entirely false. DC Comics is now nearly as popular as Marvel in terms of readership among adults"), that you don't appear to be reading the quotes carefully enough. The quote in the Marvel Comics article doesn't say anything about maturity or popularity, nor does it even pertain to a comparison of the two company's books today. Sanderson is talking about how Marvel distinguished itself from DC in the 1960s. Similarly, the quote in the graphic novel article doesn't say that "comic books are junk material". Daniel Raeburn is discussing his umbrage with the term "graphic novel", and what he feels that term implies.

As for whether you think the assessment is "true" or "false", please see WP:V and WP:ATT. The standard for inclusion is Verifiability and Attribution. Not truth, nor editor agreement or credulity. Where critical or aesthetic analyses by critics are concerned, you cannot remove valid, sourced content simply because you disagree with it. When we write articles on movies, for example, we will frequently quote Roger Ebert, or the consensus at Rotten Tomatoes, because those sources are considered reliable in that field, and not because we agree with it.

Regarding the suffix that appears after the company's name, however, this page at Marvel.com indicates that "LLC" appears at the end of Marvel Entertainment, but I don't know what goes after Marvel Comics. Anyone have a source for this? Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

re: Magneto (comics)

Stop.

Use the talk page and show there is consensus for the change before you edit the article again.

Right now you are being disruptive in your methods and singular focus. This can result in:

The article being protected to put an emphasis on using the talk page, and
You being blocked for disruptive editing.

- J Greb (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your 2nd warning. Use the talk page for the article.

- J Greb (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd warning - Disruptive editing and edit warring will get you blocked from editing. The article is now protected, so please make your suggestions of the article's talk page.

Please also take a look at WP:BRD and WP:OWN.

- J Greb (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hr for disruptive editing and inability to use the talk page at Magneto (comics). It is advisable that you use talk pages in the future or this type of block will be repeated. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, 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. J Greb (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for immediate resumption of disruption at the expiration of last block. Deliberately repeating the pattern of not using the talk page instead of edit warring to get your way will result in the block lengths increasing. It is strongly suggested you use the talk page at Magneto (comics) when this block expires to discuss the changes you want and gain consensus for them. If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit. Otherwise, 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. J Greb (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have insisted on returning directly to what got you block and in the face of another Admin warning you [1]...

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for single article focus on edit warring to over use of the talk page, as you did at Magneto (comics)‎‎. 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. J Greb (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

I have just completed a fairly extensive review of your editing history. Your editing has from the first clearly been an attempt to impose your own view on articles. You have edit warred on more than one article, you have repeatedly removed sourced content which refers to views you don't like, you have made no attempt to discuss your editing or to respond to messages. You appear to have no intention of accepting consensus, which is one of the fundamental principles on which Wikipedia is built. Wikipedia does not work by each of us battling to try to impose our own preferred version against the will of others: it works by those of us who are willing to cooperate and compromise doing so, and those who are unwilling to do so being excluded. A series of blocks have made no impact on you: each time you simply return to continue the same kind of disruptive editing. Consequently, it is likely that your next block, if there is one, will be indefinite. I am taking the time and trouble to explain this, not as a threat, but rather in the hope that you will think about what I have written, and consider changing your approach, so that you can avoid such an indefinite block. I do hope that you can become a productive editor, rather than being lost to the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how do i edit wikipedia articles then??? i just need to know how!

Bluntly? By not doing the same thing that has gotten you blocked repeatedly. And by all right should have gotten you blocked again since your first atrticle edit after yout most recent blocke is to make the exact same edit to the exact same article.

You've been told previously: Use the article's talk page to see if there is a consensus for your desired change. If you cannot or will not, you will be blocked again, possible indefinitely.

- J Greb (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

This is disruptive. You are refusing to say why you want the change or move to the talk page when you get reverted.

At this point its feeling a lot like vandalism and is almost enough to get you blocked again.

- J Greb (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for tenaciously and underhandedly going right back at it, as you did at Magneto (comics). 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. J Greb (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]