User talk:Krlzh

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

September 2009
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Stop edit warring. ThuranX (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Joe Chill, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This is the final warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Joker (comics), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User:ThuranX has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Tide  rolls  13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

What is your problem? How many editors have to undo your edits, and block you, before you learn some basic editing principles? Just because you think something is true, doesn't make it true. Please stop with this editing war your' intent on continuing, and move on. Just because you think it's Jack Napier doesn't make it him. A new director, new producer, new movie. It may build on some of what happened before, but that doesn't make everything seamless. IF you can find a reliable source for your edit, you can cite it and make it. Otherwise, it's absolutely long past time to drop this matter. ThuranX (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Following up on this... the "Sources are by heaps"...
 * The horse about IMDB not be a reliable source has been thoroughly beaten.
 * Weblo looks to be a dubious site at best. And it looks a lot like the "trivia" is being copied wholesale, one way or the other.
 * Wapedia is a Wikipedia mirror.
 * The Absolute Astronomy page is a version of the Wikipedia article on Thomas Wayne, which should have, and has had the spec removed.
 * Answers.com is throwing up a Wikipedia article.
 * Filmy looks on par with IMDB, maybe.
 * Same for the Chinese site
 * The French Wikipedia... right.
 * anar.zone.free.fr... has this been used before?
 * FilmWeb... and another version of the IMDB.
 * The degree to which this was an edit to make a point, and relied on so many unusable or unreliable source cannot be underscored enough.
 * Continuing to edit in this manner is going to get you blocked again.
 * - J Greb (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Onorem♠Dil 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 You have been blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is strange; you don't seem to have ever made an edit to an article talk page. At Wikipedia, we work out our decisions by discussing them on talk pages; that's how we get things done, not by endlessly reverting one another. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet
You have been. (blocked by MuZemike 02:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.