User talk:96.5.241.159

Recent edit to Z'ha'dum
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Z'ha'dum without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Prof. Mc (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary templates
Please stop blindly applying } templates to articles with the "official-looking" comment "NOTICE: PER WP:FILMPLOT, PLOT SUMMARIES IN FILM ARTICLES SHOULD BE KEPT BETWEEN 400-700 WORDS." You templated My Best Friend's Wedding, where the current summary is 633 words, already well within that range; and Air Force One (film), where the summary is 812 words, not so large as to require a template. Some of the plot summaries in other articles you templated are indeed overlong, but the template will suffice without the "NOTICE" (and please STOP SHOUTING). If you want to try your hand at condensing these or other summaries, have at it, but stop with the template spam.  General Ization  Talk   19:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, if the summary is minimally over 700 words, as in the case of Cry Wolf (2005 film), it is considered good form to fix it yourself rather than simply tagging the article; I have reverted your addition of the tag in this case. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm Melmann. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Hamsterdam— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Melmann (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Template SPAM. Massive numbers of disruptive single-purpose edits puts you in danger of a BLOCK
YES. You need to stop the template spamming -- ideological crusade without explanation in the edit summaries. etc. You should count this as at least your first warning. Continued reactionary disruption may result in a BLOCK.

This is the 3rd admonishment to stop the disruptive editing and the 1st warning that continued disruption may result in a block. 108.20.176.55 (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.
 * 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. 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.

Since you're still plot blanking
....I'll continue reverting you, per User talk:Flyer22/Archive 19 and this. See what Debresser recently told you? Yeah, you keep being told that, but you keep on editing Wikipedia's plot summaries poorly. I've decided you are either a WP:Troll or are simply not WP:Competent enough to edit Wikipedia. If you can't summarize, you shouldn't be editing plot summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Holy crap. You're still doing this? I told you that if you just tag the articles, I'll get around to fixing them. It may take me a few weeks to do it, but I will. If it's a matter of life-or-death, you can post the article's name to my user talk page, and I'll get to work on it faster. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: The IP has continued with another IP address. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC) UPDATE: That link goes to an old version of the IPs talk page. The correct link for the IP's current talk page is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1006:B107:49FE:F0C9:D67C:AA66:F82A&oldid=681065489 108.20.176.55 (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Doing this fools nobody. Prepare to be blocked as both IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for evading a previous block. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Neil N  talk to me 23:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you recently removed some content from German occupation of Czechoslovakia with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
Your recent editing history at SDF-1 Macross 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Aspects (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You are still doing the plot blanking? You just don't learn, do you? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Aspects, you've realized that Slivertiger779 is the IP, right? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, plus also BlackGator, but barring opening a WP:SPI, which seems time consuming and daunting, I am not sure what can be done. Aspects (talk) 05:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Aspects, if they continue WP:Socking, you can simply report the matter at WP:ANI. WP:ANI also handles sock cases, especially very obvious ones. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
I'm Innocent, thus this IP Address (96.5.241.159) does not belong to both accounts slivertiger779 and blackgator. Don't you understand? this is a School account. and I'm not the plot blanker. I'm very sorry for this! 96.5.241.159 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is easily a case of WP:QUACK. You are editing the same area of fictional articles including some of the exact same articles, dealing with plot templates, using some of the same language in your edit summaries, also sometimes not dating the cleanup templates and updating the dates of cleanup templates. You also only edit in gaps of their editing. Aspects (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And it instead of responding to somehow show that you are not the same editor, you keep up the same pattern of edits that the named accounts made, thereby proving my point. Aspects (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to To Save a Life
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! — &#124; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard&#124; — 15:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive plot template spam
Why are you placing dozens of "plot" templates and stating that each is "too long"? For a start WP:PLOTSUM states that "There is no universal set length for a plot summary, though it should not be excessively long." In most cases the plots you have tagged are not really excessive and require whatever is needed to summarise a complex movie or novel. Also, you have placed so many tags in such a short space of time and often less than a minute apart that it is impossible for you to have read each and every summary in order to judge it excessive or over-detailed. This is little more than a priggish tag-spamming crusade which is more disruptive than anything. Please stop. Or better still, instead of tagging dozens of articles and making a mess why don't you reword them yourself? WP:SOFIXIT 82.26.59.181 (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.59.181 (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one year for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  14:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello, I'm Krenair. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Cuban Missile Crisis— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 13:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

December 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ridgeview High School (Florida). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.   Rusalkii  (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)