User talk:Legobro99

why did you put a redirect

April 2020

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

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: Skywalker saga was changed by Legobro99 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.941904 on 2020-04-09T03:35:05+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Legobro99, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Skywalker saga, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Jack Frost (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Skywalker saga. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Skywalker saga was changed by Legobro99 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.948111 on 2020-04-11T03:07:56+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Samaritan moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Bad Samaritan, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Skywalker saga

the film saga with all 9 films deserves its own page Legobro99 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot continue to edit war to restore an enormous wall of unwikified text. I've protected the page to prevent you from recreating it. Please use the talk page to begin a discussion about the changes you would like to make to see if there is consensus for the changes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 02:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why i just wanted it to have its own page Legobro99 (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And other editors disagreed, therefore you now need to discuss the changes you want and get consensus for them. That's how it works on Wikipedia.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, blanking this article not only once, but twice is outright disruptive.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok but it should get its own page think about it Legobro99 (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page in order to understand how to deal with content disputes.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 03:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Star Wars fandom—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Clark Kent; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok but clark needs his own page and also bruce Wayne

Legobro99 (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bad Samaritan

Hello, Legobro99. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bad Samaritan, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bad Samaritan

Hello, Legobro99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bad Samaritan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Jennifer Hale. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cite the IMDb or copy its data into Wikipedia. It's a user-generated website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

@Legobro99: The page The Addams Family 2 should not be created until the film appears to satisfy the guidelines for future films. Please edit only at Draft:The Addams Family 2. First warning. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT ignore my warning because you think differently. Second warning. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

hello Legobro99, I made a edit on The Simpsons saying it was the most adult-watched cartoon in the West based on the sources I've seen. But you deleted it, i know i haven't been on Wikipedia for long, can you please explain to me the mistake i made, that would be very helpful thank you. Rayan wind (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You put she was the most watched cartoon in the west Legobro99 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Peter Parker (Marvel Cinematic Universe), as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted, because Wikipedia cannot accept uncited material. Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. If you ever have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. PopoDameron (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, you may be blocked from editing. Magitroopa (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Meg and Quagmire. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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 ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please do not remove redirects without substantially improving the original content that you are reinstating. The redirects exist for a reason. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Big Bang Theory (Family Guy). STOP removing redirects. You have no consensus for this, and they were put in place for good reason. DonIago (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Individual episodes are generally not notable. WP:NEPISODE breaks down the exceptions.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what about family guy's big bang theory episode that isn't notable or what about back to the pilot? Legobro99 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it meets the criteria noted at WP:NEPISODE then start a discussion on the associated article talk page to see if others agree.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dawn Moore (November 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Ingenuity was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Notability is not inherited.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Dawn Moore and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Legobro99! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert of edit on 2022 Pennsylvania Senate election

I'm a bit confused by your revert of my edit on the 2022 Pennsylvania Senate election article, but I wanted to bring to talk before reverting. All of the races that I bolded as having winners have been called by multiple sources. The Inquirer has made calls for Nick Miller, Tim Kearney, Greg Rothman, and Katie Muth winning their race. TartarTorte 14:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Skywalker Saga (November 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Storchy was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of Star Wars films instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Skywalker Saga and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Storchy (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of Star Wars films into Draft:The Skywalker Saga. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Elizium23 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive and unsourced editing

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2018 Arizona gubernatorial election. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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 ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Please stop adding false, unsourced claims to articles. Your statement was patently false and you refused to consider any attempt at introspection when it was removed. Cpotisch (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts on The One and Only Ivan (film)

Can you explain why you're reverting anyone who adds the detail that the movie is being removed soon? 2600:1700:87D3:3460:29DA:245B:EF08:EFB6 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm also wondering about this. Since this is spread across multiple pages I figured I'd ask you directly why you're removing (sometimes multiple times), without edit summaries, cited mentions of shows that are reportedly going to leave Disney+ and/or Hulu. One show's examples: [1], [2]. Thanks and feel free to move this discussion to another place if you'd rather. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC) combined into a single section with an EC basically Skynxnex (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust deadline so i believe we should wait until that day to be certain. Legobro99 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well. We don't have too long to wait so it's not a huge deal but if it gets another, independent source and/or Disney confirmation, I think it probably could stay in most of the articles. In the future, leaving edit summaries can help let people understand why you made the edits and help prevent reverts for removing sourced content since Deadline is generally seen as reliable for entertainment articles: WP:RSPDEADLINE. Skynxnex (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vulture has independently confirmed it, and Deadline's story has been updated to refer to the "original list of titles set to be pulled May 26 that Disney had sent out to partners" — noting that there could be additional changes, in which case articles and thus Wikipedia would be updated, but it seems well-sourced for now.

As has been stated above, Deadline is considered generally reliable for entertainment articles, and Vulture (while not being noted on entertainment specifically) is considered generally reliable as well. I'm sorry you [Legobro99] don't trust them, but that's not cause to remove it.

I'm going to go ahead and boldly restore the most recently removed version on The One and Only Ivan, purely because that's the article that led me here, as well as add some more context and the Vulture source. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:29DA:245B:EF08:EFB6 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have just violated WP:3RR — please do not revert any further. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:29DA:245B:EF08:EFB6 (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Disney+ films

All the films reported to be removed in Deadline are real, Deadline merely reports the news. The information is from Disney themselves, per https://deadline.com/2023/05/disney-remove-series-streaming-disney-plus-hulu-big-shot-willow-y-dollface-turner-hooch-pistol-1235372512/. Please consider reviewing your edits. STB (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ajeeb Prani (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chopper

Just because Dave was credited for voicing Chopper in the Rebels finale does not mean he is automatically the voice everywhere else. We need a reliable source confirming that he provided the voice for Chopper in The Bad Batch before it can be added to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Skywalker Saga (November 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by M4V3R1CK32 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of Star Wars films instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Content already exists. No substantive changes made since last decline.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Skywalker Saga and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Jumping into a discussion you know nothing about and restoring a change just to edit war with me is vandalism (diff) (and WP:HOUND). If you had taken a moment to look at the Talk page you would see that even the person who made that edit acknowledged it included mistakes that should not have been restored.

Please read WP:SIMPLE and explain your changes with a meaningful edit summary.

Please also read WP:BRD specifically the WP:DISCUSS part. Repeating the same edits over and over again without explanation or discussion on the article talk page is disruptive and unhelpful. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one committing vandalism! --Legobro99 (talk) 7:51, 3 December 2023 (EST)

Finally he speaks. If you first discuss the issues on the relevant article talk page maybe we can resolve this. You can bring this disagreement to the admins and I will calmly talk with them too but it would be easier for everyone if you explain yourself with meaningful edit summaries or more detailed comments on the article talk page. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND following me and reverting my edits[3] will get you blocked. -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop!--Legobro99 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2023 (EST)

Are you unfamiliar with the process of WP:BRD and the need to discuss? Do you not understand that following me to other articles and reverting will get you blocked for disruptive editing? -- 109.77.196.243 (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

109.77.196.243 is the Vandal!--Legobro99 (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2023 (EST)

Making an edit that you disagree with is not vandalism. Furthermore, being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. I warned them too; you two need to discuss this matter on the article talk page to reach a consensus. If necessary, you can seek page protection. Should discussion fail, dispute resolution is available. You need to pursue these alternatives instead of edit warring or you will be blocked. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Crazy, Stupid, Love) for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of process, a new low

You edit war, you refuse to WP:DISCUSS and then you You WP:HOUND me, to another article and repeatedly restore an edit that person who made it User:InfiniteNexus has even acknowledged that it was broken "As for modifying reference titles, that was a mistake done by accident". To top it off you abuse the process to request a page lock[4] on the very page you have been disrupting. I've seen some hubris on Wikipedia but this is a new low. -- 109.76.200.233 (talk) 13:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

As you have continued to WP:HOUND me (diff) you have left me with no choice but to escalate this. -- 109.76.201.77 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir episodes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

Hello Legobro99.

When you're reverted, you don't revert back. You discuss.

Please see WP:BRD. BRD means Bold, Revert, Discuss.

It's not BRRD. Or BRR.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting the edits to the table? It's going to happen. Legobro99 (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you why in the edit summary – twice. You can read, can't you? In contrast, you have not explained why you repeatedly have removed it.
We don't know that for 100% certain, he might change his mind.
It also might add to confusion when it comes to the voting share.

Now, why do you not follow WP:BRD? Have you read it?

Keep the discussion in one place – here.

Oh, and his last name spelled Gallagher, not Gallager. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems commited to it. Legobro99 (talk) 10:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Skywalker Saga

Hello, Legobro99. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Skywalker Saga, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Landslide victory, you may be blocked from editing. unexplained re-insertion of original research--that goes against our basic tenets. Drmies (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The Skywalker Saga has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Skywalker Saga. Thanks! MK at your service. 12:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of contentious content at 2024 United States presidential election

I invite you to give a incredibly valid reason behind this addition considering you have not engaged in any discussion on the topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She already has enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee. Legobro99 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware there is a discussion on the Page about it with multiple objections to it? It is currently skewed at 14/9 for Support and Oppose (if I am good at numbers). I don't know what will happen with it but can you please hold fire until the discussion concludes. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case adding incorrect information to TF: One's page

Please cease from adding misleading information to the Transformers: One wiki, Lorenzo di Bonaventura isn't a reliable source, the films are very clearly not connected, saying they are is nothing more than pure misinformation, it's clear to anyone that they aren't connected.

Now, respectfully; stop edit warring. Catalyst GP real (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just restoring based on his comments. Legobro99 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo is not a reliable source, please do your research on him before edit warring. Catalyst GP real (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catalyst GP real (talk • contribs) 20:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Transformers One. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Legobro99 reported by User:Untamed1910 (Result: ). Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Transformers One. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=I was trying to fix the page. But other editors keep ignoring this source. https://collider.com/transformers-one-chris-hemsworth-optimus-prime-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-comments/}} Legobro99 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block

{{unblock|reason=I was trying to fix the page. But other editors keep ignoring this source. https://collider.com/transformers-one-chris-hemsworth-optimus-prime-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-comments/ Legobro99 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

Block

{{unblock|1=I was trying to fix the page. But other editors keep ignoring this source. https://collider.com/transformers-one-chris-hemsworth-optimus-prime-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-comments/}} Legobro99 (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Legobro99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was trying to fix the page. But other editors keep ignoring this source. https://collider.com/transformers-one-chris-hemsworth-optimus-prime-lorenzo-di-bonaventura-comments Legobro99 (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:3RR and WP:EW but don't address this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Legobro99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for Edit Warring. I will try to gain consensus next time. I have been on Wikipedia for 4 years. I am an experienced editor and I would like another chance. I promise to do better and help out the right way. Legobro99 (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request was made before the current block, and you edit warred again while the unblock request of an expired edit warring block was still open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Legobro99 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One open unblock request at a time, please. You currently have two. Note that your block is only for 72 hours, despite this being your second block for violating WP:EW. If your unblock request fails to convince anyone to lift the block, you'll still get a third chance once the block expires. --Yamla (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the second unblock request, which was a repeat of the first, and left the latest one.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Legobro99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't mean to edit war. I was trying to fix an edit made by a disruptive user. But they kept reverting it and I didn't have a choice. Look, I'm sorry for the trouble I've caused.

Decline reason:

You did have a choice. You could avoid edit warring. You've previously promised to stop edit warring but each time your block expires, you go right back at it. This is your third block for violating WP:EW and your second block this week. Possibly, possibly, you might convince another reviewing admin to unblock you with a WP:0RR restriction, meaning no reverts at all. However, it's not clear to me that you'd be able to adhere to that. Yamla (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You seem to think that when you think you are correct, it's appropriate for you to keep on reverting anyone else's edit. That's simply not the case. You need to demonstrate you clearly understand this is not the case. Calling someone else's edit disruptive, simply because they disagree with you, is a non-starter. --Yamla (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Legobro99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

That user was reverting the other users edits. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2024_Democratic_Party_vice_presidential_candidate_selection&diff=prev&oldid=1237637929 Please, unblock me with a Wikipedia:0RR restriction. That way I won't revert again. I really want to make this right. I am a proud user of wikipedia and I would love to get back to editing.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. You've now been caught evading your block as EliSkipjack, putting to rest any need to believe you were acting in good faith. Yamla (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why are you bringing up the other user's actions? That's not relevant to your block. You'll also want to describe what WP:0RR means, because nothing here convinces me you'll behave any differently than you have in the past, given your past promises. Note that it isn't me you are trying to convince, though. --Yamla (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that any non-technical restriction would be adhered to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will adhere to the restriction. I fully understand my actions have consequences and I will fully follow the Wikipedia:0RR restriction. Legobro99 (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you won't have changed from "I didn't have a choice" to suddenly being able to adhere to a 0-revert-restriction within less than an hour after two previous blocks for the same behavior. You've managed to edit war again while the unblock request of an expired edit warring block was still open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to do that. I was in the middle of writing a report on the other user when he reverted again. Look, I swear to adhere to the restriction and I will do better. I'm really sorry for being a disruptive editor. The 0RR restriction means no reverts, right? I mean to follow this restriction and be a better editor. Please, I'm just trying to make Wikipedia good and stop vandals from ruining the pages. I understand if this won't convince you, but I will tell you this, being on Wikipedia has been the best 4 years of my life, and it was an honor to contribute, even if there were some disagreements in between. Legobro99 (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

You have a decent shot of being unblocked here if you can take some time away and show you can edit productively without edit warring on another project, but only if the block evasion (logged out and via account creations) stops immediately.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, got it. I really want to make this right and I will stop the block evasion. I really want to get back to editing and this week has been an eye opener for me. Next time I find an edit I disagree with, I will take it to the talk page. That is a promise. Legobro99 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the block evasion specifically violated the WP:0RR restriction we were previously discussing. --Yamla (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get that. I promise to take an issue I have to the talk page. But I suggest you IP check 109.79.72.19, I feel like he's been socking as well by using different IP addresses. Anyway, this may or may not convince you otherwise, but I truly am sorry for what happened. Maybe you can help me by showing the right way to resolve an edit conflict because I want to make this right and redeem myself. Don't worry, I will never sock again. This is my vow. Legobro99 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any unblock of this user. They've gone out of their way to demonstrate they will not abide by any viable restrictions, will not follow our policy, and can't be trusted to be honest. --Yamla (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Legobro99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will follow the policy next time. I really want to edit again. Please. I want to redeem myself and edit on Wikipedia better. I truly am sorry for what happened. Legobro99 (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said you were going to follow the rules, and then you tried to use a sockpuppet to avoid following the rules. Please review the standard offer: six months with zero edits on Wikipedia. This also means absolutely zero editing while logged out. Note that if you are caught editing from another account, you will trigger our "three strikes" policy which will convert this block (which can be lifted by any admin) into a ban (which requires community consensus to lift), and bans are much harder to appeal.

Six months from now is February 2025. In the meantime, you can contribute to the Simple English Wikipedia. They have a guide about writing simple English pages, but be very careful that they have a one strike policy for editors blocked on other projects. Good luck. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.