User talk:Anonymous8201981

February 2015
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you made a change to an article, George Stinney, 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. ''Note also that, even if sourced, this particular material may amount to trivia inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia (as may other entries in that section, for that matter). Please review WP:TRIVIA, WP:IPC and WP:NFILM before re-adding. '' TJRC (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You deleted a section that is true and that I am involved in. It's a production of nearly $14 million dollars. I suggest you do your own research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous8201981 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Hello, I'm Iwilsonp. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to George Stinney 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. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at George Stinney. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Iwilsonp (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous8201981! It sounds like you have a concern about some of the information on George Stinney. Instead of just removing it, the best way to address this is to start a new section on the article's talk page (Talk:George Stinney) with an explanation of the reasons you have for suspecting the information to be invalid. Then other editors will see that message and can discuss it with you, and we can figure out together how to improve the article. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at this again, it sounds like you're partly concerned about the removal of this information you added - "In late 2014 another film studio has taken interest in the story. Rumored to be titled "The Young One", it's based on actual events. Preproduction is listed to begin in late December 2015 throughout the southeast including Mobile and New Orleans." It was removed because there's no source for the information - in other words, other editors and readers don't have a reference that verifies the information and shows that it's definitely a real thing. The editor who removed it isn't saying that the information is untrue, just that it doesn't have a reference. A good reference can be a news article, like the ones that mention the 83 Days film project - if you have something like that for this film project, you can post a note about it on the article's talk page and another editor can integrate the information into the Wikipedia article. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Anonymous8201981, re this edit with the edit summary of "The film production has been cancelled due to family discontent. DO NOT REPOST. Contact the family attorney if there is further issues", unfortunately this isn't the way that Wikipedia works - as editors, we discuss changes and look for reliable sources for those changes, instead of just reverting edits and removing content. Do you have any links to published articles or any other published information about this, such as a link to a statement by one of the people involved in the project? Based on those sources, you and I and other editors can adjust this part of the article to more accurately reflect whatever is going on right now. If you continue just reverting other people's edits, other editors are going to get frustrated and possibly block your account. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a comment, if there is a source for the statement that you're trying to add, then there isn't a problem, Anonymous. Please make sure to prove your point by placing a citation next to it. Is it that you do not know how to do so? HanSangYoon (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at George Stinney. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, I see you've removed those sentences again now that your block is up. I saw that the Indiegogo campaign didn't reach its goal, but that doesn't necessarily mean the project was canceled. The Facebook page for the movie has updates from the past month that seem to indicate the project is continuing. In general though, even if the project were canceled, it doesn't make sense to remove cited sentences about the project. Instead, it makes sense to add a new sentence with new cited information, or to bring up relevant material on the article talk page for discussion. Dreamyshade (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)