User talk:StormExpert

Season end dates and years

Welcome to Wikipedia. You have been adding season end years to series overview tables and changing the headings of upcoming seasons to include years, usually contrary to hidden notes that you have deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we do not add dates until we can verify specific dates with citations from reliable sources. WP:TVUPCOMING specifically says not to add years to headings until episodes have aired (note past tense) in those years. Could you therefore please stop adding years unless you can cite the years and definitely do not add years to headings unless episodes have already aired in those years? Also please abide by any hidden notes and do not delete them. Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StormExpert, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi StormExpert! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Simpsons episodes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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 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. Seems like AussieLegend already tried to explain dates and WP:TVUPCOMING. Please do read their advice. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at List of The Simpsons episodes. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Still WP:TVUPCOMING EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Lyrick Studios. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SummerPhD^v2.0 17:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Arthur (season 18). SummerPhD^v2.0 18:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StormExpert, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Kimberly Brooks, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The note you removed to add an unsourced birth date explains that the d.o.b. has been contested. SummerPhD^v2.0 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StormExpert, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD^v2.0 13:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]