User talk:Ser-rod-7

Hello, Ser-rod-7, and

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ser-rod-7! 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 Gestrid (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Martinevans123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to The Scientist (song) have been undone because they 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. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at O Brother, Where Art Thou? shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. From your comments at the help desk, I think you have a few misconceptions about Wikipedia. You can and should read the stuff in the welcome section above, but here are a few simple facts.

• Wikipedia has no management, so we don't have a CEO. It's run by volunteers who have organized themselves according to policies we adhere to.
• This scheme has worked for more than 15 years and we have developed more that 5.5 million articles using it. During that time there have been more than a million volunteer editors, and more than 100,000 are active in any given month.
• We are self-organized, and we have learned that we need to avoid or minimize disruptions caused by disruptive editors who will not abide by our policies.
• Since we do not know who our editors are, we do not take any editor's word for anything. If you put a fact into an article, you must provide a reference to what we call a "reliable source". That's true for all the facts in all 5.5 million articles, and we will not make an exception for you.
• The Wikimedia foundation does have a CEO and some professional IT folks to keep the servers running. They have no influence on the way we run Wikipedia as long as we don't break any laws like copyright violation or libel.

Now, you can still edit articles to add anything you can find references for, and you can still discuss anything relevant on the talk pages of articles, but you cannot expect us to change the policies we have used successfully for the last 15+ years without a lot of discussion. -Arch dude (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to emphasize what Arch dude has said: Your repeated insistence that you are right without references is worse than useless to your goals. You've been told at least six times already that references are required for changing genres and yet you keep throwing the same virtual temper tantrum. Your statements read as if they were written by a twelve-year-old. There is no chance anyone will do anything you demand be done because you are not credible. If you continue this pattern of behavior, you will certainly find yourself blocked. This will happen no matter who you claim to be or why you claim you are correct. Stop now for your own good. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Twister (1996 film). SummerPhD^v2.0 04:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Miley Cyrus 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: Miley Cyrus was changed by Ser-rod-7 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.923754 on 2018-10-05T13:25:55+00:00

Thank you.

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 Shania Twain. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Crank That (Soulja Boy), 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 22:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on In My Place. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You verry annoying man! So please stop it providing unsourced editing. You are really supposedly against unsourced editing but you edited to be It chapter two to be supposedly running 198 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomber7600 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC) And STOP Adding WDP Studio in King's Man movie. YOU TIRED ME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomber7600 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make it clear to you that Wikipedia is a serious enterprise to construct an encyclopedia, and not a battleground. This is not he place to engage in a "war" and I found your comments at User talk:Bomber7600 #The king’s man source completely inappropriate. You need to learn to concentrate on the edits and not the editor. Surely you must realise that you cannot resolve disagreements about content by reverting. Edit-warring is not the solution and you must engage on the talk page. That way you stand a chance of attracting other interested editors who can offer their opinion until a consensus develops. The three talk pages Talk:List of 20th Century Fox films (2000–present), Talk:List of Walt Disney Pictures films and Talk:The King's Man exist to allow you to make your case about the disputed content of the article. In this case, where there is a dispute over whether Entertainment Weekly and Walt Disney Studios are reliable sources for that content, we have a WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where you can ask other editors for their opinions on whether the source is reliable or not.

I hope you understand that other uninvolved administrators like Dlohcierekim are also concerned, and that administrators will not hesitate to take action should edit-warring continue. Please let's not see any recurrence. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at An American Tail. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced runtime. Thanks. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at The Hardest Part (Coldplay song), you may be blocked from editing. User:Ad Orientem, this user has been warned constantly for edit warring and adding unsourced material. It is still happening into October. They already had an ANI thread started on them and clearly have received administrator attention. I think it may be time for a block. Ss112 07:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ser-rod-7, you need to stop the disruptive editing. You have a wall of warnings on your talk page, mostly for the same issues. As far as I can tell you have not responded to any of them. If this continues you are heading for a block. This note should be understood as a Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Everyday Life (Coldplay album). Robvanvee 04:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Everyday Life (Coldplay album). It does matter whether it is sourced or not and continuing with the unsourced genre's is going to get you blocked again, only next time it will be longer. Robvanvee 18:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But still it doesn’t matter, I never see the source around the news or the music website, and you should know that. Ser-rod-7 (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread can be found here. Robvanvee 06:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent you from persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Martin. Looks like your last block was too short and hasn't had the desired result Robvanvee 06:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.
Your addition has now been reverted four times by three editors. Before restoring your preferred version, you will need to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and establish a consensus for the change. If you continue otherwise, you will be blocked from editing.

Given that you have had a number of problems in the recent past, if you are blocked again, it will likely be quite long, possibly indefinite, depending on the blocking admin's opinion. I strongly suggest you think carefully before continuing. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this? We don't add plot material in that way.

Don't

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]