User talk:PRProgRock

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. However, the reviewer felt that a few things need to be fixed before it is accepted. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/War of the Independents.
To edit the submission, you can use the edit button at the top of the article, near the search bar
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Help desk or the reviewer's talk page. Alternatively you can ask a reviewer questions via live help

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Pop icon, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Star Wars, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Star Wars. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to a loss of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jar Jar Binks, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Digimon Dark Horse.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Digimon Dark Horse.png. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at C-3PO, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Happy Pet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chihuahua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2002 video game), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Alternative versions of fictional characters[edit]

The article Alternative versions of fictional characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing but unreferenced original research and synthesis. No indications of the notability of the subject, just indiscriminate lists of ideas/concepts/characters already covered in their respective articles.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Alternative versions of fictional characters for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alternative versions of fictional characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative versions of fictional characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Battletoads, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 03:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace‎[edit]

Ray Park was 25 when he portrayed Darth Maul. That would be 20-something. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Children's films"[edit]

You need to stop adding this category to films that are not children's films - your personal history with them has no bearing on the matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Alternate versions of fictional characters, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm ^X 23:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceballs[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Spaceballs with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, when your edits have been reverted by more than one editor, you do not keep edit-warring to keep your preferred version (which has problems, btw). Are you trying to get blocked again? MikeWazowski (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Lanter, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Bone (comics), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used mainly for trolling, disruption or harassment. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request?[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have spent one month reading Wikipedia's policies. I promise NOT to create sock puppets ever again. I now completely understand context. Please, can I be unblocked? PRProgRock (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for sockpuppetry, but I guess we need to add that to the list now. Please identify your sock accounts, and then please address the reasons you were blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2012 (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.

Edit request[edit]

I have two edit requests to make:

Can someone please add Category:Star Wars episodes, to Category:Epic films and Category:Robot films? PRProgRock (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone add Category:Middle-earth films and Category:The Lord of the Rings film trilogy to Category:Epic films? PRProgRock (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Okay, here are the reasons: * I ignored context by constantly changing the names of some of the Star Wars characters in the wrong contexts. * I edit-warred on Spaceballs and Bone (comics). * I constantly added inaccuracies. * I added the wrong categories to the wrong pages and categories. * Some of my edits were misleading. * When edit-warring over Bone (comics), I made a comment that showed unwelcome ownership of the article. * Some of the information I added was all unsourced. * I deleted content from several places without explaining. * I did not use talk pages for proper discussions over my edits. * My sockpuppets are NikanaStarkiller and Subla Riddle Fladnag. I have spent some time reading the policies on Wikipedia very carefully. I now completely understand that I did the wrong things. I feel sorry for myself now. I really mean it. I really DO promise NOT to create sockpuppets or do any of the above things EVER again. Now, if you don't mind, I sincerely request an unblock. PRProgRock (talk)

Accept reason:

On the basis of the assurances you have given, both in this unblock request and below, I think it is reasonable to give you another chance. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to consider your request. No promise as to the outcome, but willing to consider. Can you please log on as Subla Riddle Fladnag, and post a message to User talk:Subla Riddle Fladnag confirming that that account is the same person as you? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed. PRProgRock (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be willing to consider your request, without any firm promises, if you on your part were prepared to accept that any further trolling, vandalism or sockpuppetry would lead, without warning or discussion, to an immediate and permanent block from editing. Your comments?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am now fully prepared to accept this fact. PRProgRock (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Bite. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Bite, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as seen in MADtv, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on MADtv. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Movie[edit]

It is a film version of The Simpsons. Why do you have such a problem with this? It is perfectly clear and doesn't need to be changed, certainly not to "a film about the Simpson family". There not real. Their from a TV show. If you really think it needs to be changed please at least explain why you feel it is presently confusing rather than constantly reverting several other users who disagree with you. Thanks, Gran² 17:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please explain what your problem with the existing text is, rather than just blindly changing it. It's not a spin-off. It's a film version of the TV show. That is perfectly adequate. As for the Tim Burton category: them being "mostly" family films clearly means they are not "all" family films. And even if they were family films, why have you added the children's films category? Neither category belongs there and both are subjective and inaccurate. Please stop adding such categories on the grounds of what you feel a movie's appeal is. Thanks. Gran² 08:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The film is the film version, not any other word. Spin-off has a specific meaning, The Cleveland Show is a spin-off from Family Guy. The Simpsons Movie is the film version of The Simpsons. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rough Draft Studios Spy vs. Spy.png)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rough Draft Studios Spy vs. Spy.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bone-complete-color.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Bone-complete-color.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Spy vs. Spy, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bone (comics), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Spy vs. Spy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bone (comics). 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Masala chai. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, your comments on my Talk Page were not appropriate. Please do not do this again. Bluerim (talk) 12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Spy vs. Spy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spy vs. Spy[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Spy vs. Spy. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit-warring, failing to adhere to WP:CONSENSUS, disruptive editing, and all of this after multiple blocks AND your own promises to stop. Clearly you are unable to edit within this collaborative environment according to the policies you agreed to when you signed up. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua "Aquarium"[edit]

Found your edit from 22:38, June 11, 2012‎ on the Aquarium (Aqua album). It took over 6 years, but I found your prank of labeling this a "Children's Album." Bravo, sir, bravo! * slow clap *

LuvataciousSkull (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Digimon Dark Horse.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Digimon Dark Horse.jpg. 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) 03:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]