User talk:Political Expert 47 47

March 2018
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Despicable Me 3. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Incredibles 2. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Removing valid criticism to make the subject appear more positive isn't appropriate. Rhinopias (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Death Wish (2018 film). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Taboo (2017 TV series). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
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from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Die Hard with a Vengeance. Given the litany of warnings you received in July, there's no reason you should be continuing to add material that lacks proper references. DonIago (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the truth
It is a known fact that audiences think highly of this film unlike critics. I was writing the truth. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I assume you are referring to this edit. Your edit was reverted because there is not a source cited to support your claim that the film received "overwhelming praise from audiences.". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This has been done before
The same thing happened on the page for the movie Jupiter Ascending where it was stated that it was more popular with audiences than critics. Don’t try to destroy what I do because I will fight back no matter what, I will find a way no matter what. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 03:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When did that happen on Jupiter Ascending? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

On the Wikipedia page, it said it receive praise from audiences but not critics.


 * When did you have this problem on that article? If you look at the page's "History" tab, it will show all of the edits. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Christopher Robin (film). ''The source cited says "mixed", so Wikipedia says "mixed". If you disagree or do not understand, please discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you continue otherwise, you will be blocked from editing. '' Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:04, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix a mistake
On the Wikipedia page for Christopher Robin, it said it got mixed reviews. I then looked on rotten tomatoes and saw that it had a 69% on there. Yet on the Wikipedia page for the movie The Wolverine, it said it got generally favorable reviews even though it also has a 69% on rotten tomatoes. I was simply fixing a mistake on this website and I intend to do it again until this wrong has been righted. It is offending for the page to be reverted back to its original state even though what I wrote was the truth. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Christopher Robin (film), you may be blocked from editing. Changed the title of a reference in a cite and misstated in the article text what that reference actually said Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How dare you call it disruptive editing. Many sources I have say that it received generally positive reviews. Enough. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it to the talk page of the article. Don't falsify what an existing reference states. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

On rotten tomatoes, Christopher Robin had the same score as The Wolverine, yet Christopher Robin says on its Wikipedia page that it got mixed reviews and The Wolverine got Generally Favorable. Look on the pages. They are not my personal sources. Wikipedia uses Rotten Tomatoes as a source all the time, including both pages. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are your problematic edits on Christopher Robin:
 * This edit changed "mixed" to "generally favorable". The reliable source cited for that sentence, here, says "mixed". Whatever else you may have seen anywhere else or whatever you may think, the source says "mixed". So long as that is the source used there, it must say "mixed".
 * This edit changed "mixed" in the article to "Generally Favorable". It's the same source as the previous edit with exactly the same problem. Additionally, you removed the word "Mixed" from the title of the source. If you look at the source, the word "Mixed" is in the title. Do not change titles of sources. The title of the source is the title of the source, whether or not you agree with it or not or think it is right or wrong. Do not change titles.
 * This edit is the same problem AGAIN.
 * Your edits have been reverted by two different editors. You chose to continue. You were asked to discuss the issue on the article's talk page before continuing. You did not.
 * I have asked that you be briefly blocked in hopes that you will discuss the issue before continuing to edit war on the article. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Christopher Robin (film). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point
They had the same scores yet Christopher Robin was said to have mixed reviews while The Wolverine was said to have generally favorable. They were the same on rotten tomatoes. You need to understand I was trying to fix a mistake. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am completely uninvolved in this argument--I stumbled upon it entirely by chance. Will you permit me to be explicit? Your best bet is to
 * Stop arguing about who's right. At this point, nobody is reacting to what you say; they're reacting to how you say it.
 * Do not keep making the same changes over and over.
 * Start using the article's talk page to try to get consensus for your changes.
 * I assure you, with my hand on my heart, that changing your behavior is the one and only chance you have to have changes made in the article content. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You are right
Looking back, this has gotten out of hand from the start. Sometimes I just get frustrated and my anger takes over me. I was going to apologize yesterday but I didn’t have the guts to do it, so I will now. My sincerest apologizes. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude I’m sorry
I had one account and forgot the password and made a new one. I then put it in automatically on my iPad. Sometimes I forget that I have two accounts because they are so similarly named. I don’t worry about that stuff. I didn’t know it was a big thing. I eventually remembered my old password so I alternated through accounts sometimes. I was so stressed during summer and I did things I wish I didn’t do like edit stuff and start arguements. I’ve apologized, now I need your forgiveness and help. I don’t know how to unblock my IP address or defend myself. That wasn’t a sleeper account, I’m not even fully sure what that is. I’m not a computer mastermind or anything, I’m 12. I always use Wikipedia. Please give me a second chance, I won’t disappoint you because I know now the consequences of my actions. If you don’t believe me, unblock my IP and observe my edits to see if I was truthful. Please help me, I can only improve upon myself if I am giving a chance. Thank you.

Please respond to me and help me
I really need you to read what I wrote and help me out in getting my IP unblocked. I use Wikipedia all the time and I don’t want to be blocked from one of my favorite websites. Thank you for reading this. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I’ve tried to activate it and it won’t work
I know you’re ignoring me but I need help, I know my password I was just blocked because I was falsely accused of sock puppetry and my IP was blocked and I can’t defend myself. Political Expert 47 47 (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have once again messed up
I don’t know how to delete an account, please help
 * You can't delete an account. Delete account. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been blocked for a false reason
If anyone is willing to help me please do. I have been accused of Sockpuppetry, which I had to look up the definition for. The reason for two accounts is because I had one account, but then forgot the password, so I created a new one with a similar title which would be easy to remember. I eventually remembered the password for the other and sometimes I alternate between the two accounts since sometimes I cc’d fuse which one I use. If there is a way to delete an account, I will delete one, but please, I have been falsely accused and am asking for help to be unblocked.

I promise to God I will never use the other account
I now see my options being, try to appeal the block, or just accept defeat. I don’t believe I should have been blocked, but I understand why I was. I will never use Political Expert 47 again and will never edit anything logged out of my account. I promise this. The only edits ever made again, will be made on this account. I now understand what a Sockpuppetry investigation is, and how it looks for me, I can change.

I’m asking for help
I’ve been blocked for not understanding the rules, but I do now. Political Expert 47 was my original account and I forgot the password. I made a new one (this account). I eventually found the password for the other one, and because the names were so similar, I often wouldn’t notice which one I was using especially since I have my password remembered on this device. I also didn’t know that editing without my account wasn’t aloud. I understand these rules, now I would like a chance to show that.