User talk:Iuo sku

November 2018
Hello, I'm Oshwah. 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 House of Cards (season 6) 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. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to House of Cards (season 6). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   13:22, 8 November 2018 (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 House of Cards (season 6), you may be blocked from editing. - Radiphus (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at House of Cards (season 6). - Radiphus (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. -- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why the block
I clearly stated a citable material from rotten tomatoes, a website very popular Iuo sku (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You clearly did not cite the source. You cannot just say "Rotten Tomatoes". Please see WP:CITE and Template:Cite. With online sources, you need to link to the source in the cite. At any rate, I could have has easily blocked you for edit warring. It would be best if you discuss rather than continuing to revert. If you had there would have been no RfPP report and no need to decide between page protection and blocking. Thanks, -- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief. You had four warnings-- two from an admin, and still persisted. I think I counted 4 reverts after your last warning. Please see above.-- Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)