Why exactly do you keep taking things out of the Super Smash Brothers Brawl article? It's annoying. Please stop. -Sukecchi 18:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Dbackes18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not vandilizing. I am a signed member of wikipeidia and I actually made the character bios more legible.[reply]
That's funny Tj. You are a troll. All you are doing is removing information from the article, your "contributions" aren't helping in any way. I'd stop if I were you. Comrade Pajitnov18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you people talking about? Read my bios and then read the ones you guys keep putting back up there. Mine are much better. And if I have deleted any information, it's non-needed such as those space-wasting Japanese translations.
What you're doing to the article is removing notices that state not to add any unconfirmed information and you're removing the Japanese and main article links, that's not helping, it's vandalism. -Sukecchi18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how many times you edit the article it's still not and will not help. You're not doing anything to make it better. So stop wasting your time.-Sukecchi19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lot to make it better. So what I deleted the notices, I've still abided by them. I haven't posted any unconfirmed or untrue information. My bios are much better than the ones you keep putting back up there. We don't need Japanese translations. That's what Japanese wiki is there for. So YOU stop.
Please stop this senseless Edit war on the SSBB page. If you think the content should be a certain way, discuss it. If you cannot reach an agreement request mediation. Also, removing warning tags from your talk page is a bannable offense, please do not do it anymore or I will report you.
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Dbackes19:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. TJ Spyke23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. TJ Spyke00:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to WrestleMania 23. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Your change made the punctuation incorrect. Please do not make pointless edits. Suriel198115:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The change you made, putting the comma before the "speech mark" is incorrect. You might not have noticed but Wikiproject:ProWrestling are monitoring the WrestleMania 23 page virtually continuously and between us we know our grammar. I see from TJSpyke's comments above that you've been asked to stop making unnecessary changes to the page before. You ignored that request so now it's considered vandalism. In addition, you might want to not call Wikipedia users names on their talkpages. Believe me, it won't look very good. Suriel198117:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Angry Sun23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.
Is there a particular reason why you are undoing virtually all of my changes to the article? Per WP:RS, the internet movie database is not (and never will be) a reliable source and thus is not useable. Summarising a quote is usually more preferred to just using a quite for an entire sentence. In the reference templates, you are supposed to have the dates filled out xxxx-mm-yy per WP:MOSDATE. -- Scorpion042215:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to the Castellaneta quote. And, trust me, I've tried using it in the past and IMDB is not considered a reliable source. WP:FILM allows users to link to it, not use it in citations. And yes, Ellipsis' are allowed in articles, but you are correct that square brackets are discouraged. Per this, we should use round brackets. -- Scorpion042215:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch><>°°00:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly think you own the article, you have reverted me every time I have tried to make fixes, some of which are per the MOS. -- Scorpion042215:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it's a featured list and it was passed at a time when the standards were very low. Try using IMDB in a featured article. And you misread that guideline, it never says it is useable as a reference. -- Scorpion042215:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Barney Gumble. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scorpion042217:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barney Gumble. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Matthewedwards21:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not renominate the article until you have discussed changes on the talk page and come to a consensus. The current article would never pass a WP:GAN because of the constant edit warring. Please discuss changes with the other contributors to the article, who are practically begging for your cooperation on the talk page. If you can't work together with your fellow wikipedians and continue your disruptive editing, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. Nikki31122:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I see there have been complaints about you edit warring and ownership issues with some articles, particularly Barney Gumble. I strongly suggest that you go directly to the talk page of this article and interact with people; an edit summary is not a way to have a discussion.[reply]
Let me make myself completely clear: If you revert the article again without first going to discussion, I will block you for at least long enough for you to read the ownership and consensus guidelines. --Golbez (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm at it: It's extremely poor form to remove a warning from your talk page without responding to it. It really doesn't help your case. --Golbez (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly inappropriate. The point of the GA review process is to get a review from an independent third-party reviewer, not to do tit-for-tat GA reviews. I see you have done this at other users' talk pages as well: [1], [2], [3]. Please do not do this again. If you are getting anxious and want to speed up the GA review process itself, and that way help to get a quicker review for your GA nom, a more constructive way to do that would be to review other articles higher up in the list in your article's subsection at WP:GAN. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reviewed your GAc Barney Gumble, there were a few minor problems. However, since another editor noticed you weren't available, he/she took the liberty of fixing them. The article has been promoted to GA status, so please do not undo this editors edits. Thank you, --Music26/1111:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Springfield (The Simpsons). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. –JuliancoltonHappyHolidays01:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the above, I have closed this report without issuing a block. Please take this second chance opportunity to continue talking it out on the talk page and consider this your one and only warning that if you continue to revert war, you will be blocked. Thank you. --B (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please use the "Show preview" button when making edits in the article space. It allows you to look at your changes without saving them, rather than making repeated edits in rapid succession. Also, when editing the article space, please leave an edit summary in the "edit summary" box that appears just above the buttons. This edit summary tells other contributors what changes you have made and makes the article history much easier to read. Thank you. --B (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you weren't blocked is because the 3RR report system really sucks and the admin who responded to my report is afraid to block people, so watch yourself because you really are on your last warning this time. If you think other editors are my sock puppets, then I welcome you to - no, I insist - that you file a report here. As for other quotes, it doesn't really matter if other articles use them. In the Springfield case, it's an unnecessary quote that doesn't add anything to the article and isn't necessarily talking about the town. My advice: just give it up, you are lucky that you weren't blocked so move on and work on other things. -- 16:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The only reason you got away with it is because I was ignored for eight hours then it was dismissed because too much time had passed. -- Scorpion042217:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you actually watch I'm Spelling as Fast as I Can before you write about it, because what you're adding is fake. First off, he was not shown relapsing, nor was he asked to spell relapse. All that happened was that he was showing lying on the street and he asked Lisa to spell relapse. She did, and then he responded (singing to the song Respect) "that's what beer has done to me!" -- Scorpion042222:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please discuss sweeping changes before making them, or at least use a sandbox and don't leave stuff unfinished in the mainspace. I did consider adding all of the things in your design (occupation, an image field and separate seasons) and would consider them, with discussion. The principle thing to remember is the length of the article. It is already, without in-line citations, 56KB long. With images and everything else it would be huge, not to mention the potential loading time. Also, the principle reason as to why I removed the separate season sections was because a single sortable table would be more useful trying to find out who has been in however many episodes. Anyway, I'm not dismissing your changes at all, and would like to at least have images down the side (which I started on Monday and have yet to implement) but let's discuss this first. Gran218:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Please do not add unhelpful and non-constructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to WrestleMania 23. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Your change made the punctuation incorrect. Please do not make pointless edits. Suriel1981 15:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Barney Gumble. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. -- Scorpion0422 15:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
