Fronticla
Welcome
|
Your editing behavior
Many editors have come to your talk page to commented / complain about your lightning edits to hundreds of articles in a questionable quest to remove certain phrases that you don't like. You continue to perform these edits, and you've removed dozens of comments and warnings from other editors from this talk page, I suppose in the mistaken belief that wiping it regularly will cover up your continued habit of making mass edits with no discussion. (It's all there in the edit history.)
I strongly suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia guidelines on consensus, and perhaps the three revert rule. Your stubbornly non-collaborative behavior pattern is not helpful, and it will eventually get you blocked if you don't cut it out. Zeng8r (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Fronticla. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Cult films
I noticed you've been removing mentions of cult followings in films. Most of the time, this is unsourced and should be removed. However, when it's sourced, you should not remove it. For some films, their cult following is what has made them notable. In other cases, their cult following is so strong and vocal that reliable sources have dedicated coverage to the phenomenon. This sourced information should not be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop removing sourced content. If you continue doing this, you could end up blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at WT:FILM, which is what you should have done it once you were reverted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017
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, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Psychotronic Man. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 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; 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. Sam Sailor 21:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
- Similar edit warring is noticed in Near Dark. Please take this opportunity to join the discussion at WT:FILM#Removal of sourced legacy information about cult followings initiated by NinjaRobotPirate. -Sam Sailor 23:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Near Dark. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- If you don't make any attempt at discussion and instead continue your WP:IDONTLIKEIT blanking spree and edit warring, I will raise this at WP:ANI and ask an uninvolved administrator to block you. This has gone on long enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- I concur. Please stop removing sourced content from Near Dark. Just Googling for the film title and "cult" reveal it to be one of the films in the book 100 Cult Films. Another book says, "The Loveless and Near Dark were low- budget films that garnered 'cult' audiences." A book about the director says, "Four years later she gained a small cult following with her second feature film, Near Dark..." The film is also mentioned in The Cult Film Reader and Cult Cinema: An Introduction. Wikipedia is based on content from reliable sources, and that cannot be overridden with your opinion of what is known as a cult film. If you persist, you will be blocked. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)