User talk:Pelie43

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Amalthea 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Pelie43 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please stop making similar edits to the following articles:
 * Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

Hi, concerning the recent editing dispute you've been party to, you are in what's called an edit war. Please don't simply continue to revert articles, if you find yourself in such a dispute, seek discussion on the article's talk page, and try to come to some kind of consensus. Most editors here are trying to make this encyclopedia as best as it can be, so please assume that if one of your changes is undone, that editor might have good reasons for him, and discuss the issue with him. That style of editing is called the BRD principle, for bold edit – revert – discuss, and has proven to be the most healthy, most persistent, and least stressful way to edit. Also note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. That is the line that is absolutely not to be crossed, but if your actually as far as counting your edits to avoid crossing it, you are usually already in an edit war and need to find a different approach. Users who continue to edit war may be blocked for it even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Should discussion prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please immediately stop the disruption though, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Regards, Amalthea  13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, retaliatory action like blanking the other "side's" user page is extremely inappropriate, please don't do that. Amalthea  13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, your continued edit warring on those pages is plain unacceptable. I expect you now to come to one of the talk pages, or to this talk page of yours, and explain your rationale for those edits. A simple continuation of reverting to your favored version will lead to your account being blocked for disruption, you are undoing good edits with your actions, and are introducing both unencyclopedic information as well as server stylistic problems, as has been brought to your attention. Amalthea  15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In absence of an explanation or any kind of reply from you, and considering the scope of this issue and the implicit consensus against your changes, consider this your last warning. You are always free to seek discussion and explain your rationale why you find your changes beneficial and to seek consensus for them, but do not simply continue edit warring, otherwise your account will be blocked. If you have any questions about this, or how best to proceed from here, feel free to ask me either here or on my talk page. Regards, Amalthea  17:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Manual of Style
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't be certain, but I assume Sottolacqua refers to the linked dates and the rather unusual list formatting that you used, I don't see anything else stylistically wrong with it. While it would of course be helpful if you could familiarize yourself with that so that other editor's don't need to bring it in line with the standard formatting for you, that's not a big issue, you'll typically pick it up as you go. Regards, Amalthea  15:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the lack of capitalization, spelling errors, grammatical errors and inconsistent edit structure. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Halloween II. Jusdafax  15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2009
Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to User page for more information on User page etiquette. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Deaths" section
i know what you did last summer scream friday the 13th sleepaway camp halloween a nightmare on elm street scary movie

Please stop adding this information to articles. It is unconstructive, unencyclopedic and not standardly included in other similar film-related Wikipedia articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of "Survival"
A tag has been placed on "Survival", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Bramble  claw  x   16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy deletion
Do not remove the speedy deletion template if you are the creator of the article. Instead, use the Hangon template, and explain why it should not be deleted.  Bramble  claw  x   16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)