User talk:Vinny Weasel

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Vinny Weasel, 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 help you get started. Happy editing! CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2020 (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 help forum for new editors, 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

Edit-warring[edit]

I understand you're new to Wikipedia, and I'm taking that into account. To operate successfully, Wikipedia operates on various rules to promote collegiality and collaboration. One of the foremost is the policy at WP:BRD, which states that once your edit is reverted, one does not re-revert but, rather, one goes on the article's talk page to explain the edit and try to reach WP:CONSENSUS with other editors in order to make the change. By re-reverting as you did at Kendall Jenner and Rob Kardashian, you engaged in what is known as edit-warring. Please read that bluelinked policy. Edit-warring can result in admin intervention that can WP:BLOCK one from editing for a certain amount of time.

So as a friendly reminder, please go to the those two articles' talk pages in order to try to reach consensus, so that admin intervention will not be required. Thank you for contributing to this altruistic free encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to stop edit warring. Unless, of course, you are looking to get blocked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Watchmen (film). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Template:New Avengers, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jeremy Jahns (YouTuber)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jeremy Jahns (YouTuber) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_December#5_December_2018. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Praxidicae (talk) 10:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of Rick and Morty episodes, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Green Arrow, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Trains2050 (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Giganta, you may be blocked from editing. Jusdafax (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your deletions, but I don't choose to revert them further. Please always use edit summaries, as they will help explain your reasoning, and save the time of vandal reverters to whom your edits, if unexplained, appear to be plain vandalism. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continue to mass remove the voice actors without a consensus or any form of discussion, and a report will be filed against you at WP:AN3. You may be blocked from editing as a result. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:22, 14 July 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 Aquaman (film). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy[edit]

Hello Vinny, i wanted to ask you to edit the Article about Meg Griffin, in which she is called Megan, even tough her real name is Megatron Griffin, as shown in:

A Fistful of Meg Family Guy: Season 12, Episode 4

Thank you a lot, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.164.223 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick and Morty[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick and Morty (season 4); 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. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue, you will be reported to the adminstrative board for edit-warring and violating 3RR. Cease your reverts and discuss the content. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 3RR. Thank you for your time here editing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to making this a bigger deal. If you can’t find sources then leave it.Vinny Weasel (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated Wikipedia policy, regardless of the content; this is a banable offense. Please prepare for the report against your behaviour. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You basically started by reverting it, even when told to find sources from the company that says it. You already engaged in this back in December 2019 with Mariofan3. Leave the page alone, like it originally was until we figure this out.Vinny Weasel (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. You have violated Wikipedia policy by reverting more than three times across at least one article, regardless of the content; this is a banable offense.

Companies are irrelevant. As long as any source supports the content, it can be used. Edit-warring policy does not support reverting for this reason, thus a report against you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Sources matter. For example, if you’re getting a source from infowars then no, doesn’t work. Companies releasing press releases count, their the people behind the projects so yes they’re relevant to the subject, regardless of what project. Just find a source that coming from them or even just the creators. Just something. Vinny Weasel (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Please read our policies on sources. "Corporate" is irrelevant; you need to educate yourself on this. Primary sources such as that are actually frowned upon in the face of other secondary sources.

None of this supports the fact that you violated 3RR; can you defend your warring, or will you self-revert and discuss at the article talk page? -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and facts matter, don’t just chose some random BS website. If corporate says something about their product then it counts. Be smart and Ive moved to episodes talk page for further discussion.

You did not answer me. None of this supports the fact that you violated 3RR; can you defend your warring, or will you self-revert? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answer the question. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not intend on answering? I'll repeat the question: None of this supports the fact that you violated 3RR; can you defend your warring, or will you self-revert? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shapiro[edit]

Hi Vinny Weasel, I saw your last edit on Ben Shapiro, adding the Republican party as political party to the person infobox. Thank you for your contributions to this article. Could you provide references for this? And does Ben Shapiro has any membership to this party? Looking forward to your edit/answer. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source that details his political affiliation. Thanks, take care. Vinny Weasel (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your contribution. I can't seem to find the mention on [source] about the political affiliation with the Republican party. It wouldn't surprise me if he votes Republican, but not sure about affiliation. Have I missed something? Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Big Time Rush (group). 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. Thank you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rian Johnson, you may be blocked from editing. Nemov (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 13, 2020[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

August 2020[edit]

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 Kiernan Shipka. Sundayclose (talk) 16:19, 17 August 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 This Is Us. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Star Wars. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Weasel, there is a page full of warnings here, and not enough good responses to them, and it does not seem like you have changed your way of editing. In addition, you have a bad habit of making edits while logged out. All that together is too much. Now, indefinite is not infinite, but if you wish to get unblocked you will need to address this business of unverified editing (and the edit warring), and we need to hear from you that you will not edit while not logged in, esp. not when you are making those edits in the same area. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I admit when I’ve edited stuff, I do get a bit carried on certain subjects. Although, some of the edit warring was resolved. For that, I certainly do have gotten better and try my best to explain the first time around for my actions. On the subject of editing while logged off, I admit I do it occasionally but don’t what you mean by bad habits? I usually make my major edits while logged in. If unblocked, I would very much like to have a debate on the Black Dwarf page and make my case. I do apologize for edit warring, I am prone to making my mistakes on subjects that should be discussed on that articles proper talk page. If it’s all right with you, I will handle my situations with edit warring more carefully and take any issue I have with the talk. Thanks. Vinny Weasel (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 30 September 2020 (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're not related to this account are you? 2601:243:1C00:E800:DC2B:6DF7:CF88:4464 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinny Weasel, that is at least in part encouraging. Now, editing while logged out is a bad habit if you are making edits in the same area, and you haven't made just a few edits--we're talking about over a hundred in the last three months. Someone could go through and see if as an IP you reverted someone in an edit war that your account was involved in, and judging that there was an intent to disrupt, decide to block you for socking, for gaining an advantage in an edit war or other conflict, and block you indefinitely and throw away the key.

If you want to be unblocked you need to tell us that you will NOT edit while logged out, and if you ever do you will stay away from articles you edit as an account. Cullen328, you're a fair admin--if Vinny Weasel here addresses this in a sufficient manner, I'd appreciate your input. I always prefer unblocking. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, it is pretty discouraging to read the long list of warnings on this talk page, none of which have been responded to adequately.

Vinny Weasel, what I think we need from you is a rock solid commitment to never edit war again, and a promise to always log in before editing. You need to improve your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, and you must promise to always discuss matters on article talk pages whenever you have a disagreement. Right now, I see no reason to lift your block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, the account listed. No that is not me. I occasionally edit while logged off as an IP, but I don’t have another account, just this one. I promise I’ll handle my situations better, when it comes to edit warring and not using another account (which I don’t have). Regarding the Black Dwarf article, which was is the second last thing I edited. I swear I’ll start a conversation on it and get some consensus on that and any future page I edit that seems to get edited. After my experience with the Rick and Morty episodes, I have noticed that engaging in conversation, although getting heated, did reach consensus when more editors came to my defense. If unblocked, I will try do all the following I just said. Vinny Weasel (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Black Dwarf.jpeg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Black Dwarf.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]