User talk:JNM547

November 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Scream Queens (2015 TV series) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Scream Queens (2015 TV series) was changed by JNM547 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.904063 on 2015-11-19T00:17:47+00:00.

Disambiguation link notification for December 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited T.M.I. (South Park), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuck You. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to List of Scream Queens characters
Hello. I noticed that you made an edit that introduces praise or promotional language to the List of Scream Queens characters article. On Wikipedia, we adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV) and avoid promotional language or puffery. Please read the NPOV policy page, as well as this page of language to avoid to better understand how to expand this article in a style suitable to an encyclopedia. If you have questions, please see the Help Desk page. Thank you!  CatcherStorm    talk   02:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Scream 2, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Cast is set as the poster appears, please do not temper with the article or you will be banned temporarily or permanently. '' troublednbored (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Laser brain. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dark Skies (film) 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 have 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. Thanks. Laser brain  (talk)  00:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scream (1996 film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Return of the Jedi. Your edits have been or will be 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. DarkKnight2149 05:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 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.

February 2016
Hello, I'm Qzd. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Freddy vs. Jason has been undone 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. Qzd (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been reported
You have been reported at WP:AIV for persistent vandalism and disruptive editing. DarkKnight2149 23:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Result
The report was declined for not being "obvious vandalism", though your edits still qualify as disruptive editing. Please take this as a second chance to stop making disruptive edits and start making constructive ones. If these edits continue, you will probably reported somewhere other than AIV and may not be so fortunate as you are this time. None of us want that to become necessary, and new members are Wikipedia's most valuable resource, so please don't continue abusing that trust. DarkKnight2149 01:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Slasher film. Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
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 Scream 2, you may be blocked from editing. DonIago (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to A Nightmare on Elm Street. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Given the previous editing issues you've apparently ignored, it's difficult to believe you are operating in good faith here. DonIago (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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:. Laser brain  (talk)  16:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've issued this block because I see people asking you all the way back to the time of your account creation to stop adding unsourced or incorrect information to articles. You continue to do so without discussion or edit summary, and not once have you communicated with other editors to discuss your edits. This is a requirement for editing here. An unblock request may be considered if you are able to address your lack of communication and understanding of our guidelines for reliable sources and verifiability. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unblock request #17
Okay, I see a lot of template, template, template, template from anybody, with not too much explanation of what JNM547 actually did wrong, or how you actually cite sources and add information.

Basically, when editors disagree on content, you need to stop and discuss things, ideally on the article's talk page. If you get a message from another editor on your talk page here, you can generally reply here as well and be expected that your response will be read, which is another way of handling. Have a read through how the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle works which may give you some idea.

When you add content, we need to know where you got the information from so we can fact check it. This is what we normally call "sources" or "references". Newspapers and books are good sources to use, including online versions of those. Have a look at Referencing for Beginners to see what sort of information we need. However, in my view, this edit to A Nightmare on Elm Street is summarising later paragraphs that do have sources, so in that case I don't think a lack of a direct citation for "The film received critical acclaim upon its release" at the start of a sentence is a particularly big issue (particularly as the article already had a citation to Rotten Tomatoes showing a 94% approval rating, which would back this claim up).

I've gone through this editor's contributions and everything seems to be good faith edits, so I think we should give them another chance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't share your optimistic appraisal of this person's edits, as they are almost entirely their personal opinions. They made zero talk page edits until I blocked them and they've made a string of unblock requests that are basically parroting our language in an attempt to get unblocked. However, I see no actual understanding of our policies on sourcing and the need to communicate with other editors. I am against unblocking. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced either that anything would change if this user was unblocked. JNM547: please tell us one edit that would like to make and how you would support that change by citing a reliable source. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that's more a problem with our policies being too difficult to understand and our user interface for editor - editor communication being poor (and I can't see Liquid Flowthreads fixing that). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Possible conditions of an unblock

 * JMN547, if you were unblocked would you be willing to:
 * 1) Ensure you include reliable sources when adding or changing information in articles and
 * 2) Ensure you communicate with other editors if they raise concerns with your edits?


 * and would you be amenable to a cautious unblock if JMN547 would agree to the terms above?-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  21:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not support an unblock because I have seen no evidence that anything would change, and there has been no response to my question above yet. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)