User talk:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4

May 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Tomb Raider (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Singham Returns, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Diffs:  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please don't submit unsourced content like you did here. See WP:ICTF for a general list of sources that are, and are not, suitable for inclusion in the context of Indian film articles. We need all content to be verifiable, which is why we require the inclusion of references. See Referencing for Beginners if you're unclear about how to add sources. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing films. 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. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on The Curse of La Llorona. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please stop stating it was a commercial success without any reliable sources to establish that. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello, I'm DonQuixote. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Shazam! (film), 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. Particularly, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. DonQuixote (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Twilight Saga (film series). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.  General Ization Talk  20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at The Secret Life of Pets (franchise), you may be blocked from editing.  General Ization Talk  20:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of natural horror films, 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. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Richard Madden. Railfan23 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Harry Potter (film series)‎
I think you could have avoided to write this edit summary: "Changed worldwide box office ranking from 11 to 12 due to lion king live action remake which only made more money due to idiot people and Disney fanatics supporting medicore films". It was really inappropriate and unnecessary. -- Mazewaxie ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page 2011 in film has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Geniac (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Chatting on talk pages
Hi there, re: this edit, talk pages are for discussing constructive changes to articles, not for general chatter about the subject. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, please sign your posts properly, unlike the same edit above, where you did not sign your post, and here where you did it manually (?) for some reason. Your signature must contain at least one link to either your User page or your Talk page, because surprise surprise, the point of a signature is to tell the reader who left the message, and when you are calling yourself "Hpdh4" when your user name is actually HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, you are needlessly making it difficult for people to figure out who actually left the message. If you are using the four tilde ~ signature, please remove whatever odd formatting you've added to your preferences. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

April 2020
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Woodroar (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please note that J. K. Rowling is also under discretionary sanctions. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4 (or Hpdh4), I noticed that your signature doesn't include a link to your User Page, User Talk page, or Contributions as required by WP:SIGLINK. You can read more about signature formatting and requirements at WP:SIG. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at George R. R. Martin that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.


 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

May 2021
Hello, I'm KyleJoan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Richard Madden, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KyleJoan talk 00:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Game of Thrones, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Bradley and Jacob Andersen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Richard Madden, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. KyleJoan talk 11:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

March 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Richard Madden, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan talk 01:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Alert - Biography of Living Persons
Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)}

Providing a new notification as old ones expire after twelve months, and the last notification received for this sanctions area was in 2020. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. MoneytreesTalk🏝️CCI guide 01:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your editing on the J. K. Rowling article and talk page and outside of it has been highly disruptive, I'm not really sure where to start... and to be clear, I have no real opinion on Rowling or her views or whatever. I don't care.


 * You have engaged in retaliatory editing on subjects that are opposed to Rowling or are perceived to be rivals of hers in some way; you did this yesterday with this edit to Rick Riordan, with a source that did not even back up the claims you made. You also did this at Daniel Radcliffe in 2020; he had publicly criticized Rowling, so you added negative information to his article. You were reverted and took to discussion on the talk page, where it was rightfully pointed out that "The inclusion is retaliatory, added solely because Radcliffe criticised Rowling, nothing more. Unlike the topic of Rowling's anti-transgender activism, Radcliffe's description of some of his friends (not the "many friends", added by HPDH4) fails the ten-year test; it even fails the four-year test!" You essentially admit in this edit that you added that information as retaliation, "I find it hard to believe the motives of actors. When the defacto leader (Radcliffe) entered the anti-Rowling debate ,then the rest followed suit. [...] But where was Watson, Grint, Lynch, Wright and redmayne when Radcliffe admitted he has racist friends in that interview for imperium. You can't condemn someone else of something when your guilty by assosiation for something equally reprehensible like racism. You are editing to make a living person look bad to prove a point, which is unacceptable.
 * Outside of this sort of revenge editing, you have repeatedly made inappropriate edits to BLPs: you attack one and call them two faced here, your edits here were hidden as BLP violations, here you replaced a BLP subject's they/them pronouns because "They implies more then one person. Last time I checked only one person exists in a body not multiple. So too be neutral and not abide by gender language censorship, changed they to Fisher . Grammatically correct according to old English and not new dictionaries of Wokeness", and here you rant on a talk page, talking about The real reason is Zuma, his uneducated and radical black supporters and his family . Look at SA history of being racist to other races in terms of their BEE and AA policies.
 * Wikipedia is not a forum, and you must be civil when interacting with others. You must not make unsupported insinuations about other editors. Almost all of your posts to talk pages are either you making highly combative forum-like posts, insulting other editors, or insinuating something about them with no evidence, especially on the Rowling talk page: 1, "To pretend that Jk only got critique and zero support is blatant bias in favour of transgenderism", "All of this could be conjecture by hateful DeppFans who are upset Johnny Depp isn't in the film and Anti-J.k folk who are upset by Jk's stance that "woman exist"", 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, "SJW wait to be offended and rubbish people like that Kirkpatrick person writes sensational articles for clicks and readership", 10, "clown and foolish talk", 12, 13, "Some Fans have shown they are about has loyal has modern married couples which is too say DISLOYAL If its war people want then its war they will get I've always thought: Better be a warlord and do the trampling then be trampled on", "Obviously neutrality of some editors are in question", 16, 17, 18.
 * Then there is general disruptive editing; here you were reverted after you claimed a specific ethnic group was responsible for riots- that claim was rightfully removed as inflammatory and unsourced. Here you change a death count without updating the source, with an edit summary that includes "some woke person will change it thinking they know better then people who live in the country". Here is some unsourced weasel words, more unsourced weasel words, original research, "Don't change unless you're woke or if you come up with a better phrasing then only can this be charged. I will keep changing if my edit is removed for any reason other than a better worded statement. I'm done being nice". In these edits you appear to just be adding your own opinion into articles. "Changed worldwide box office ranking from 11 to 12 due to lion king live action remake which only made more money due to idiot people and Disney fanatics supporting medicore films" was very unnecessary. "added unrequited, since dean never reciprocated Castiel's confession . Castiels love is one way road since dean isn't in-love with him. Would have added platonic but that would anger the destiel beards on wikipedia"- seriously? What is a "destiel beard", and who are they on Wikipedia? I stopped looking eventually, I'm sure there's much more.

Then there are your recent edits to the Rowling article. I'm not going re-hash SandyGeoriga's excellent analysis on the talk. You respond to her detailed, perfectly civil post with more forum-like complaining and rudeness, and end with "Anyways....Continue ruining Wikipedia". What a disrespectful and unneeded thing to say, it speaks for itself.

If you want to be unblocked, I recommend volunteering to a voluntary topic ban from J. K. Rowling and BLPs, broadly constructed, and a strong commitment to being more careful with your editing in the future. However, I think an unblock is unlikely given the scale of disruption and your attitude, along with you ignoring the several warnings you've received. You will need to demonstrate a real change in behavior and editing moving forward. MoneytreesTalk🏝️CCI guide 03:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)