User talk:NK 16

December 2016
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Sully (film), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Sully (film). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Natalie Portman. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Natalie Portman. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Natalie Portman. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Natalie Portman. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ron h jones (Talk) 19:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

After the block mentioned above expired, you returned to the same edit war that led to that block, so you have been blocked from editing again. Naturally, since a short block failed to persuade you to stop edit warring, this time the block is for a considerably longer time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What is your point?
Do you realize if you continue the ridiculous edit warring at Jackie (2016 film) and Natalie Portman that you soon will be blocked permanently? What an utter waste of time. Do you think no one will notice at some point and your edit will stay? Or do you simply enjoy disrupting Wikipedia? Sundayclose (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Jackie (2016 film), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sundayclose (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month 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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Neil N  talk to me 19:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --SubSeven (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Please explain why you think this should not be included.
 * Stop reverting and start a discussion on the article's talk page, like the above says. --SubSeven (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * NK16, the burden is on you to establish the statement should be included, not the other way around. Your say there are sources, but none supports the statement you're adding as applied to the entire series.  In its early years, some critics did say it was among the best series made, but in its later seasons, the show was less well received.  You must stop reverting editors' reverts of your edit, go to the talk page for the article (not here), discuss the edit and find sources that support what you're saying.  You've already been blocked and warned repeatedly for just what you're doing here.  It's getting you nowhere.  Try working within the policies and practices on the site rather than trying to force in your edit.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  19:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think you have checked the shows reviews well enough over it's 6 seasons. To say that the show has been "less well received in it's later seasons" clearly indicates that you haven't properly read or checked the shows reviews. Wouldn't it be best to read up on that and then check edits?


 * Also, "none of the sources supports the statement" ? I'd read the sources before saying that. Just a suggestion


 * I know you think you know it all, but I have done both. You're taking a series of reviews and synthesizing them, not quoting one directly, which is what you need.  See WP:SYNTH.  And while you're at it, sign your posts with the signature button, and learn to indent discussions.  It's not difficult, and other editors will respect your work more if you learn how we do things.  You've just been reverted by another editor; that makes something like five or six who disagree with your edit.  Go to the ARTICLE talk page (not here), and start a discussion regarding why the statement should be included.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  20:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  References aid in forming a consensus, determining best understanding.  I encourage you to participate fully by resolving conflicts at the talk page- it's the beating heart of Wikipedia and fundamental building block.  If you build nothing, expect no effort to endure.Mavigogun (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. Probably not worth continuing this. I guess not all facts need to be stated on Wikipedia these days. Critics speak volumes about this show so that's more than enough. The fact is out there, Wiki doesn't need to reiterate that haha
 * There is a process here- one you have refused to participate in.  One could argue- with references and quotes -that your deportment, NK 16, has evidenced you to be "one of the most uncooperative editors of all time".   But is that truly the best representation of what we collectively understand?  Some might say yes, others no, giving examples of editors who are more starkly dysfunctional; a third camp might suggest those comparisons aren't helpful.   Any such conflicting notions are contested in a debate space where the record may be assessed by any other editor- now, or in the future (a useful example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Americans_(2013_TV_series) ) The alternative is endless unilateral impositions of perspective- an encyclopedia filled with radically shifting subjective truths, of utility only to the editors ego.   It is ONLY due a policy and strategy of collaboration that Wikipedia exists and has shared worth.   Participate in the process and be celebrated; eschew collaboration and be alienated as a vandal.   A first step and demonstration of good will would be to sign your posts so that other readers can easily tell where your ideas end and another editor's begin. Mavigogun (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)