User talk:Petejmarsh

Welcome

Hello, Petejmarsh, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

April 2019

Hello, I'm Trivialist. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content 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. Trivialist (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Arjayay (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liar

You Have No Right To Tell Me What To Edit And Not To Edit, I Don't Give 2 Fucks If It's Unsourced Or Not, So You're Gonna Have To Put Up With My Edits. Petejmarsh (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and Wikipedia:Civility. Trivialist (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petejmarsh, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Petejmarsh! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like RhinosF1 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios (division)

Your recent editing history at Walt Disney Studios (division) 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. See BRD for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Do not change articles against sources like you are doing or you will be reversed. The hidden note also indicates that the Theatrical Group is incorporated thus a subsidiary. note also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disney#Fox merger issues Spshu (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Arriva Shires & Essex. SovalValtos (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible competence issue with a new user. Thank you. Nightfury 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some words of advice

Hi Petejmarsh, I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia, and I see you're off to a slightly difficult start. I also see you have received a number of warnings, which can be daunting to a newcomer who doesn't know the basic rules yet, so I hope I can offer you some help. I've posted a welcome message at the top of this page which contains a number of links to useful pages, but I'd like to explain some specifics here.

Firstly, Wikipedia requires new and updated content to be supported by reliable sources, as it is important for readers to be able to follow up references and verify for themselves that what they are reading is correct. Without sources, anyone could add any old rubbish to Wikipedia, like defaming people they don't like, pushing their own viewpoints, or just plain vandalism - I'm not suggesting you are doing any of those things, but the verifiability rules have to apply to everyone. You can read more on Wikipedia's policy of verifiability at WP:V and reliable sources at WP:RS.

That brings me to the core of the way we do things - building encyclopedia content by consensus. There is no editorial board here to solve content disagreements, and the consensus approach works via a number of steps. Firstly, if you make an addition or change and another editor disagrees with it, they have the right to revert it. What you then need to do, if you still want to make your change, is discuss it. It's usually worth asking the editor who reverted you to explain what they thought was wrong (especially if you are a newcomer and the other person is an experienced editor who probably has a better understanding of Wikipedia policy). But if you can't reach an agreement that way, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page and seek a consensus - if it's about, say, Walt Disney Studios (division), the place to start a discussion is Talk:Walt Disney Studios (division). What you must not do is get into what we call an edit war, repeatedly making the same change, as that can get your account blocked. The key policy pages here are WP:Consensus and WP:EW.

I also note that you are not using edit summaries for your edits. That's a key part of the Wikipedia process, and helps editors to understand each other. Looking at the history of Carousel Buses, for example, you can see that User:SovalValtos reverted some changes of yours with the summary "The April 2019 figures are not supported by the January 2019 source" - essentially another reminder that changes need to be sourced. You should use the edit summary to add a short explanation when you make a change. You can find more information at WP:ES.

To sum up, always source your changes, explain them using edit summaries, and don't edit war if they are reverted.

I'll leave it at that for now, and I hope this is helpful to you. If there's anything you don't understand, please just reply here - I'll be watching this page. And you're always welcome at my talk page to ask for help any time you wish. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing. It looks like you might have been editing logged out too. It is important to not do that when you are also editing the same articles logged in to your account, as it can make it appear misleadingly as two different people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop editing those same articles logged out, as it is a violation of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. As you have edited them logged in from this account, you need to stick to editing only logged in. At the moment, I have blocked the IP address temporarily, but I have not blocked this account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I put some effort into trying to reach out to you, above, but you don't seem to want to listen, and so I didn't really have any option but to issue a block. If you continue as you are going when this block expires, your blocks will escalate until they are eventually indefinite. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you are evading this block and continuing your edit war logged out, the block has now been made indefinite. Your approach of edit warring to force through your contested changes, evading your block, and not engaging in any discussion or responding to any concerns, is simply not permissible. If you want to continue to work here, you need to respond by making an unblock request, and you must engage with others trying to reach out to you. Responding to communication attempts is not optional. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Boing! said Zebedee, I guess I could have asked you but I found out the other way, via the IP. I ship. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further block evasion today. I have blocked User:2A00:23C5:9F83:1301:0:0:0:0/64 for a week and rolled back all of today's edits. Petejmarsh, your edits will be reverted every time you evade your block by editing logged out. You will not succeed in forcing your way round Wikipedia's requirements for discussion and consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]