User talk:7dcf

Welcome![edit]

Hello, 7dcf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 08:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Specialist, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Speed (film) and Blown Away (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) 11:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional linkspam[edit]

It appears you are shilling for critic James Berardinelli of ReelViews, or may even be Berardinelli himself, with edits that are virtually exclusively to add promotional linkspam to Berardinelli's reviews. Such blatant attempts at using Wikipedia for promotional ends is disallowed, and if such edits continue, an admin will be asked to block or ban you from editing. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I'm sorry if i added too many critics of James Beradinelli. I disocvered his side a while ago, and thought his reviews were very professional. So i wanted to add some, since there are also a lot of reviews of Roger Ebert. But ifi did too much, i'm sorry. But did you have to delete almost all of them I added?

I checked all sites I added the reviews again and on many sites,the text now doesn't make real sense anymore due to the missing reviews. Can't you just put those I added back? I promise I won't add any new reviews anymore. Also, you don't have to worry I'm not James Berardinelli and there's alsono relation. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 7cdf (talk • contribs) 21:22, 27 October 2017‎

You can't just go around edit-warring and restoring contentious edits that violate Wikipedia policies / guidelines, as you did on October 27. Read other editors' comments here: There is no consensus for your edit-warring edits. Please read WP:LINKSPAM, which still applies even if you did not intend to be WP:PROMOTIONAL. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, after saying you would add no more James Berardinelli reviews, you did so here a day after you said you would not and again here today. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to guess, I would say we shouldn't widely add Berardinelli because, like pretty much all movie critics, he's not nearly as notable or famous as Ebert. There are lots of articles that cite only one individual critic, Ebert, and if it's decided they should cite one or two more, I don't know that Berardinelli should get precedence over, say, A.O. Scott or Richard Roeper. On the other hand, lots of movies' articles cite tons of individual critics and Berardinelli wouldn't be out of place in such a group. Your edits might not stick but I strongly disagree that they should be removed over concerns that you're spamming on Berardinelli's behalf. City Of Silver 23:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, he's violating WP:LINKSPAM and, even inadvertently, WP:PROMOTIONAL. We can't go around adding 40 or 50 links at a time promoting one particular website. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys I got it. I understand that 40 or 50 links for one particular website are too much. But some of the edits I did were - and I tink I can say that - not unnecessary, since there are a lot of sites where there were no reviews at all. Also, some movies didn't get a review from (far) more widespread critcs in wikipedia (like Roger Ebert, who by the way, was good friends with Berardinelli). And, considering how many reviews of Ebert are spread through wikipedia, I don't think 10 or 15 more reviews of Berardinelli are that bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by &dcf (talk • contribs) 23:11, 3 November 2017

RE: "there are a lot of sites where there were no reviews at all": The find another critic. You can't go around saying you're going to stick a Berardinelli review anywhere there are no reviews at all. There are many, much more prominent reviewers that would take precedence. And claiming that "Ebert ... was good friends with Berardinelli" suggests a familiarity with, and an invested time toward, Berardinelli. Yet whether you are he or a friend / fan, you cannot add promotional linkspam. And yes, going around adding "10 or 15 more reviews of Berardinelli" is the very definition of linkspam. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I see you've begun adding this promotional linkspam once again. Adding reviews where appropriate is fine. Adding nothing but Berardinelli reviews is suspect and promotional. '"Every single one of your edits this month is to promote Berardinelli. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotional links. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with User:NinjaRobotPirate. Per WP:BRD, once reverted, the protocol for 7dcf was to discuss his edits on the talk page to reach consensus with other edits. Instead, he chose to editwar for purely promotional reasons. For shame. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, 7dcf. 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)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Down Periscope, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Van Helsing (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battlefield Earth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Down Periscope. BilCat (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat: This editor 7dcf has continued to add the same promotional linkspam to Welcome to Mooseport here and to Fatal Instinct here. He appears to be either James Berardinelli himself or a meat-puppet. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to each article's talk page, because you are edit-warring and violating WP:BRD. An admin will not look favorably on an editor who refuses to go to the article talk pages and refuses to reach consensus with other editors.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, 7dcf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, 7dcf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Specialist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blown Away. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]