User talk:Rx4evr

Hot Fuzz
A recent edit you made to the Hot Fuzz article has been reverted. It is not necessary to name the action films that the characters watch. Please see the discussion on the talk page.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding the action film names to the Hot Fuzz article. It is not necessary to name the action films that the characters watch.  Please see the discussion on the talk page. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Rx4evr for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

July 2008
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Gwernol 09:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, your edits will be considered vandalism and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Gwernol 14:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy 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. Gwernol 22:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning
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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Die Hard 2 worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.  Running On  Brains  04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. ''Do not post racist comments on Wikipedia. They will be deleted.'' T-95 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Mr. Conductor's Thomas Tales 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. e0steven (☎Talk|✍Contrib) 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 00:31, 23 May 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --McGeddon (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hot Fuzz
See Firearm. Firearm is the correct term, 'gun' is a pop culture term that has become very widespread. Please also remember to be civil and not make any personal attacks. Geoff B (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your changes on the talk page. Since you have been reverted now by several editors, it would be beneficial to state your rationale for changing it. Otherwise you risk a block from WP:3R. As mentioned above, you need to remain civil in improving the article, or it also may warrant a block. Discussion will prevent the back-and-forth and result in an improvement to the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Weapons' is ambiguous. See weapon.  'Weapon' does not necessarily mean 'firearm'. Perhaps discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page? It's here. Geoff B (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep cool
Try to keep cool when the editing gets hot; ending your edit summaries with "so FUCK OFF!" is needlessly antagonistic, and other editors will find it much harder to take your edits and opinions seriously. If several other editors are disagreeing with your edits, it's usually a sign that you should raise the problem on the talk page. --McGeddon (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Riderman
The sources that we have in the article from Japanese websites state that Riderman is based off of the design of Kamen Rider V3, who in turn is based off of a dragonfly. If you can find a source that lists Riderman as a grasshopper in Japanese, then that can be changed.

Also, when you want to change a single edit, you do not go back to your preferred version of the page and replace all the changes on the page that had been made since then. Please learn about the undo feature.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy 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. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hot Fuzz links
I think you're possibly misunderstanding how links work on Wikipedia - London's is functionally identical to London's, and crimes is preferable to crimes as the latter requires a redirect from "crimes" to "crime". --McGeddon (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. AussieLegend (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AussieLegend (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this edit to The Penguins of Madagascar, in addition to the speculative content that you re-added (after it had been deleted) which constitutes original research, you changed " penguins " to " penguins ". As was indicated to you in this edit on your talk page, " penguins " is functionally identical to " penguins " and is the preferred method of linking. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you remove any more true information or add any more false information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stop removing the films from the Showa Kamen Rider pages when it has been proven that they existed.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:15, 6 August 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.

February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Thomas and Friends – Series 1 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; 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 for further information. Thank you.  - down  load  ׀  sign!  21:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edits
I just think you ought to know that edits like this and this one are pushing Wikipedia's policies on civility. You can disagree with the edits if you want, but you've got to give some better justification than "DEAL WITH IT!" and adding "ASS" to someone's name, cause those could be considered under "direct rudeness" in the civility policy.

Now I know for one thing that some of the paragraphs you've been deleting are those that I wrote, because I was trying to clear the trivia sections, and because the information I added I feel is relevant to those subjects. Do you have any specific objections to these additions to work out? Starkiller (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

T.J. Johnson
Please review WP:DEW. It was decided a long time ago that the infobox colors in Power Rangers articles shall be their most prevalent color, not their most recent. ANDROS1337  02:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alien Rangers
On Wikipedia, we count it separately. Don't state otherwise.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also edits as 69.125.166.60 Nymf hideliho! 01:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

February 2011
At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Thomas and Friends (series 2), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please do not create trivia sections against WP:TRIVIA. --Muhandes (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're Getting Old
Hi. Please do not add unsourced material or original research to articles, as you did with this edit to You're Getting Old, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of No Original Research and Verifiability. The cited source says that Parker and Stone are contracted through 2013, not 2011. If you feel that the cited source is wrong, then you have to cite a source that makes this fact clear. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Alba
Hi. Please be mindful when adding content and sources to articles as you have twice attempted to add content to the Jessica Alba article that is not supported by the reference you provided. This ref, which may to be a gossip site and may not be considered reliable anyway, appears not to have an article about Alba or her baby. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, sources must adequately support the content given. Thanks.  Pinkadelica ♣  03:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edits to the Jessica Alba article once again, please stop adding unreliable sources to the article. Gossip blogs such as velvetv.com are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. Further, there was absolutely no need for you to re-add the various red links of Alba's husband's name. His article was deleted due to lack of notability and will likely remain that way. Lastly, Alba was engaged to Michael Weatherly but that doesn't make him her life partner (especially considering she has a child with and married another man). Unless you have a reliable source that specifically states Alba considered Weatherly her life partner, please stop adding this parameter. Thank you.  Pinkadelica ♣  05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Megaforce
Do not change the order of the character list. This is the order that appears on the Nickelodeon website. We should not use the order as found in Goseiger.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sydney Tower. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. As I have indicated in my edit summaries, we must use encyclopaedic language that the majority of readers can understand. Most will not know who Ivan Ooze is or what a "megazord" or an "Ectomorphicon Hornitor" is. In any case, this is unnecessary minutiae. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please also note, regardless of whether you edit as an IP or logged in, the rules on edit warring apply to all of your edits. It is still possible to breach the Three revert rule even if you have not made three reverts on an account. All that matters is that you have made 3 reverts using both accounts. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and sources
You are edit warring, both via your account and as an IP, to add/restore unsourced information to a biography article. Given the many many warnings and notes on your talk page (and three previous blocks!) regarding edit warring and sources there's no way that you can plead ignorance of these policies. Continued restoration of unsourced challenged material will ultimately lead to another block of your account if you do not get consensus for its inclusion on the talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Please refrain from making changes to plot summaries/synopses that conflict with the plot summary edit guides, as you did at Hot Fuzz. You may wish to review the specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. Excessive detail and high word counts should be avoided. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for the continued addition of unsourced content and continued edit-warring via your account and IP. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkdw talk 18:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)