User talk:Devin.1125

"Critical acclaim"
Can you take it easy with all the "critical acclaim" comments? Let's not oversell things. Yes, some of those Sonic games were well received, but with scores in the 80s or games that had poorly received ports, it's a bit much. "Positive reception" type wording is probably better. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  14:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Hi again. Some notes about editing Wikipedia:
 * You need to use reliable sources to back the changes you make.
 * Please stop systematically changing the Reception sections of Sonic games to more positive wording. We need to adhere to Wikipedia's policy of being neutral, and it kind of looks like you're trying to insert your own higher opinion of the games rather than be reflective of the reviews actually present in articles.
 * Its good that you're using edit summaries, but ones like this are a bit misleading/dishonest, aren't they? That edit wouldn't really constitute the fixing of a typo, you were literally changing the meaning of a sentence (and actually introduced a typo when you didn't space properly.)

Anyways, please be mindful of these things as you edit Wikipedia. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you could be blocked from editing. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  16:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, it seems like you're right back at it, despite the warnings. Last warning - stop doing this, or you'll be blocked. Sergecross73   msg me  16:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, you are blocked for 3 days for persistent viliations of not citing sources or adhering to our stance on neutrality. Sergecross73   msg me  00:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sonic Adventure, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

So, it seems you're right back at the unexplained changes with deceptive edit summaries that go against the sourced information. So you're blocked again, for 2 weeks this time. If you return to these same activities, next time your block with be indefinite. Stop fooling around. Use reliable sources to add content that is consistent with the rest of the article, and/or at least discuss on talk pages to defend your edits. Sergecross73  msg me  19:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

April 2015
Please stop making edits such as with edit summaries such as "fixing typo". Misprepresnting your edits like this is vandalism, and if you continue you may be blocked from editing, regardless of the content of the edits. -- Pres N  23:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've warned you about this many times before about this. Considering you refuse to stop screwing around with this sort of stuff, you're blocked again, for a month. Sergecross73   msg me  23:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)