User talk:MovieNerd1997

August 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sinister 2 has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:45, 24 August 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: Sinister 2 was changed by MovieNerd1997 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951207 on 2015-08-24T10:45:56+00:00.

MovieNerd1997, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
 The Adventure

September 2015
Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Where the Dead Go to Die, 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. Please see WP:FILMROLE. Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Life After You (Daughtry song), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Foodfight!
Hi. I reverted your edit to Foodfight! as it added unsourced material. Terms such as "imfamous", "extremely poor" and "abysmal" are strong, and for such commentary to be in the article it needs to be done via reporting what reputable sources have said about the film, rather than making broad statements. This is done in the reception section where reviewers are quoted. Similarly, if the film has been cited as "one of the worst films of all time" please reference where, in a reliable source, this declaration has been made. Cheers, LukeSurlt c 14:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
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 Swan Princess: Escape from Castle Mountain, you may be blocked from editing. Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning 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 at Alpha and Omega (film). Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015
Please don't needlessly tinker with music genre, especially without explaining yourself or discussing and finding a consensus to change on the article talk page. Endless discussion has been given to the genre of Breaking Benjamin, and quite frankly, heavy metal wasn't even one of the front runners for their primary genre.

Please discuss before making further changes. Thanks. Sergecross73  msg me  17:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning 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 at The Nut Job. Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Fireball (Pitbull song) does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:
 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list and
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on David R. Ellis, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. 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! Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Norm of the North. ''You either do not understand (or do not care) that your interpretation of sources is contrary to our policies. "Universally panned", for example, is not stated by any of the sources in the article. In fact, the sources cited 1) do not claim to represent all critics everywhere ("universally") 2) do not state that critics hated it (only that they gave negative reviews, not "panned") and 3) actually identified a small number of critics who gave positive reviews (again, not "universally"). Consider this your final warning. If you add your personal interpretations or opinions to articles again, you will be blocked from editing.

If you are having trouble understanding what the problem is, please discuss the issue on article talk pages or here.'' Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ben Bocquelet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Director. 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) 09:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Ron h jones (Talk) 02:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sheep and Wolves
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sheep and Wolves, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.movli.com/movie/sheep-and-wolves-982588.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Sheep and Wolves
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Sheep and Wolves, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.movli.com/movie/sheep-and-wolves-982588, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Sheep and Wolves and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Sheep and Wolves, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Sheep and Wolves. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Sheep and Wolves with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Sheep and Wolves saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Qpalzmmzlapq &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  13:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sheep and Wolves


The article Sheep and Wolves has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Future films are not notable until independent reliable sources confirm that principle photography has begun. Nothing here indicates that production has begun.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. ''You were previously blocked for adding unsourced synthesis ("critically panned", "universally panned", etc.) to various articles. Since then, your editing has demonstrated that you either do not understand or do not care. If you disagree, you will need to discuss the issue. Otherwise, if you make similar edits again, you will be blocked again. Subsequent blocks will be progressively longer. Thanks.'' Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Katietalk 20:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Zootopia, 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. DVdm (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Joel David Moore. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Rob van  vee  12:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Katietalk 13:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm KylieTastic. An edit you recently made to The Apparition seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to 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. KylieTastic (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Soska sisters.  Rob van  vee  07:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Warcraft (film), did not appear constructive and has been or will be undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  10:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Breathe Into Me, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Can't Stop the Feeling!. ''You have previously been blocked for adding unsourced material and making unexplained changes. If you are blocked again, the block will likely be several months long. You will want to provide reliable sources for future edits and provide edit summaries explaining your changes. If you are having difficulties, ask for help here before making further edits.'' Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Following is a partial list of issues you have been repeatedly warned not to do (and blocked for) but continue to have problems with;
 * Making numerical changes without providing a source to support the change or an edit summary to explain why you are making the change
 * Adding unsourced information
 * Adding your personal opinions/synthesis
 * Making unsourced, undiscussed changes to genres
 * Given the rapid pace at which you have accumulated blocks, you can expect your future edits to be scrutinized. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 13:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Widr (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
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:. Widr (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)