User talk:Crowkid555

April 2020

Hello, I'm 75.191.40.148. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gods and Monsters (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ready or Not (2019 film), 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. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I've blocked your other account, Crowkid51. You've received warnings and continued to repeat edits that have been reverted by other editors multiple times on both accounts. You need to begin heeding the warnings you're receiving as well as paying attention to the reasons other editors revert you. Other admins: I was being lenient here but would not be opposed to anyone else blocking if they feel its already warranted. -- ferret (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use of multiple accounts

Crowkid, I have evidence that you are using multiple accounts still. The other account edits the same things you do, with the same style and focus on reception in leads. I already have enough evidence to block you, but I'm providing you an opportunity to explain the situation and come clean. What's going on? -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i try to use my same account Crowkid555 on my laptop but I was unable to use it as it had some issues with connection I had no choice but to use a different account. Sorry. Crowkid555 (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to block your other accounts. If you make any further accounts, you'll likely be blocked indefinitely. Please stay with this one single account. If you're having trouble logging in on PC, try asking for help at Wikipedia:Help desk. @NinjaRobotPirate: as info. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hi, I've noticed the vast majority of your edits seem to focus on summarizing the reception of video games and films; however, many of these appear to be original research, statements that are not sourced in articles, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Just to note, the lead section of an article is a summary of its most important content, and so a mention of an item's critical response in the lead must only refer to information that is outlined more extensively in the article body. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there is just one thing, the star wars squadrons page was actually true, as I was watching a review from ign saying that there are few modes, maps and squadrons in the game, and there were not a lot of modes in the game as there is only 3 modes, 2 multiplayer and 1 single player mode, the reviews in metacritic also agrees, one example came from push, who said it lacked excitement and content, and another review, gamer.nl, said that the modes are sparse. So I agree with you in some things, but this is proof of what squadrons was criticized, and it deserves to be in the page. Crowkid555 (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]