Hello, Snoopy012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to The Voice (U.S. season 8). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ԱշոտՏՆՂ (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Hzh. I noticed that you made a change to an article, American Idol (season 3), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask you to stop adding non-controversial items in the controversy section. If you want to add this, you would need to supply a source that would support its inclusion in the controversy section. The Yahoo article does not indicate that it is a controversy, therefore is not a valid source. Any further attempt to add it in the controversy section without supporting valid source will be removed, and continual addition of unsourced content may be regarded as disruptive editing. Hzh (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to American Idol (season 5). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. There is no source for the assertion that it is a controversy or even that "many viewers were stunned", and it is therefore an unsourced material.Hzh (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at American Idol (season 13) 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. Aspects (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I do thank you for all the small copyediting you are doing on my major revisions to the MST3K. However, one thing that keeps coming up: per our MOS:LQ, we never put punctuation inside quotes, unless the quote itself is a sentence. Some of your edits there have been specifically to that style. --MASEM (t) 04:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at American Idol (season 15) 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 are 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at American Idol (season 15). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that a discussion is opened in the talk page. It seems that you are the same person as the IP editor who made the revert. It does not make any difference whether you use an IP address or not, notices to that IP address, including the warning about 3RR and personal attacks, applies to both. Note also Wikipedia rules on Sockpuppetry per WP:SOCK. Hzh (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at American Idol (season 15) 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 are 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. Hzh (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Oshwah. An edit you recently made to Splash (film) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 00:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Snoopy012. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm MPFitz1968. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to American Idol (season 15) seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. That bit about White Guy With Guitar is beyond neutral, and according to one editor's edit summary here, "blatant racism", for which I agree.MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that a confirmed sock of Snoopy012, the IP address 150.210.231.30, has been blocked, and that any further suspected sock puppetry may be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snoopy012 to ensure that all the socks including this one are blocked. Hzh (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for my unintentional sock puppetry. I forgot to login at my work computer. I did not intend any harm or deceit. Snoopy012 (talk) 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop restoring the "Controversies" material. I have explained on the article talk page some of the problems with it. None of those issues have been addressed and the section you are trying to add remains unencyclopedic. Knope7 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please help me make the the "Controversies" material more encyclopedic? I'm trying to learn, so your suggestions could be helpful. Thank you. (Snoopy012 (talk) 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You have still not addressed any of the deficiencies with the content. Please stop adding it back or I will have to see what remedies are available. Knope7 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Your edit here was an attempt to re-add what had been previously done before with a section called "Controversies", which you were involved with over a year ago and at least two other editors other than me rejected because of your using just this one person (Michael Sleazak from tvline.com) to define the controversy or, in the case of your current edit, saying "This change was not well received by critics." Per WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, you need to present views from multiple sources, and make a statement that summarizes those views accurately. Note: One person's opinion is not enough to determine the claim you're making about the show's reception.MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Snoopy012. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2018 (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).
That makes no sense. These logged-out edits were not a one-time thing. SQLQuery me! 02:55, 18 April 2018 (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'm sorry for my unintentional sock puppetry. I forgot to login to my account on a iPad at a Verizon store. I did not intend any harm or deceit. I’m not a duck, and I promise never to use any other computer except my own to edit Wikipedia pages from now on.
Please forgive me and unblock my account. I enjoy editing articles on Wikipedia, especially correcting grammar and punctuation.
I also apologize for the delay in writing my appeal. Thank you for your time and attention. Snoopy012 (talk) 17 April 2018 (UTC)
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).
Below, you indicate your account was compromised. As per WP:COMPROMISED, it is therefore no longer eligible for unblock consideration. Even if it was, this doesn't address the multiple instances of editing while logged out, in order to continue edit-warring. Yamla (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2018 (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 just learned a now former friend used my computer and Wikipedia account without my knowledge. It won’t happen again. I now have my usernames and passwords in a secure Password Safe, in which no one but I can access.
Please unblock my account. I enjoy editing articles on Wikipedia, especially correcting grammar and punctuation. Snoopy012 (talk) 18 April 2018 (UTC)
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).
I think we've had enough time-wasting lies from you now, so your talk page access has been revoked. If you decide to tell the truth some time, see WP:UTRS to find out what to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2018 (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.
Snoopy012 (talk) My former friend used my account for edit-warring, too. Please don't keep my account blocked, because of my now estranged friend's malevolence.
May I change my password? That way my account would no longer be compromised. Perhaps you could let me create a new Wikipedia account?
I'll do whatever it takes to be able to edit and add to Wikipedia pages again, and to get back in the good graces of the users here.
I'm truly sorry. Please forgive me and unblock my account or please let me know what I can do to rectify the matter. Thank you. Snoopy012(talk) 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Hzh. I noticed that you made a change to an article, American Idol (season 3), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at American Idol (season 3), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to American Idol (season 5). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. There is no source for the assertion that it is a controversy or even that "many viewers were stunned", and it is therefore an unsourced material. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Snoopy012. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at American Idol (season 15), you may be blocked from editing. As per my last warning to you regarding the WGWG stuff. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
