User talk:Beanieshark22

April 2022

Hi Beanieshark22! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of London Resort several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:London Resort, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add theme park Wordwide virtual verrsion of the London Resort please Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Hello, I'm Carpathianflorist. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, London Resort, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Carpathianflorist (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add theme park Wordwide virtual verrsion of the London Resort please Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reliable source is his YouTube videos Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at London Resort. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lord Belbury (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lord belbury,

I wasn't vandalising the page. I was mentioning the theme park Wordwide YouTube videos on the London Resort. .

Can you consider this

Beanieshark22 Beanieshark22 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Beanieshark. You added some text to the end of a londonresort.info headline, I wasn't sure what you were trying to do there. I've now replied on the talk page about what it would take to write about the YouTube videos in the article. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lord belbury, I replied to what you said in the talk page. The source is reliable and trustworthy. Theme park Wordwide does use lots of truthful information about the London Resort that isn't mentioned in the article Can you consider this please or let me do it please. If you're not happy after a few days, tell me and I will take it down and you can do what you want to my account Beanieshark22 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add this content back into the article without a WP:RS reliable source like a newspaper article. It will be taken down again straight away otherwise. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lord belbury, can I say about how the London Resort is convertial and how many youtubers have disused the positive and negatives of the London Resort please. Beanieshark22 (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I don't understand what you're asking there. You're welcome to add content to the article and see what happens to it, but if it doesn't have a WP:RS reliable source then it'll likely be taken back out again. It seems pretty clear at this point that the YouTuber you've been trying to write about should not be included in the article, though, so discuss that on the talk page rather than adding it back again. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to McColl's

Hey! Just letting you know that I've reverted your recent edit to McColl's - whilst they're under administration, they're still operating for now. I understand the confusion, though - please only take this as a friendly notice. Have a great day! Remagoxer ^(talk) 17:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS reminder for television shows

Just a reminder that even after television shows cease production, they continue to exist, so we use present tense in the introduction of articles. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hello, I'm -Alabama-. An edit you recently made to Amphibia (TV series) seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -Alabama- (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please understand that, per MOS:TVNOW, television series are to be referred to in the present tense, regardless of if the series is ongoing or ended, since the series itself is still in existence. – Jamie Eilat (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning - Stop edit warring on Amphibia (TV series). EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, @EvergreenFir:, I don't think that's a very good warning. Mine's better. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Amphibia (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Television shows do not cease to exist when they go out of production. We do not use the verb "was" in the intro as a result, nor do we refer to them as "former" TV shows. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--CreecregofLife (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and general competence concerns regarding the ability to edit constructively and collaboratively at this point in time.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 18 May 2022 (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).

Beanieshark22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got information that I would like to add to rugby services and I got a reliable source to prove it.

Decline reason:

Sorry, but an editor who is actively sockpuppeting to evade their block while trying to appeal it ends up with both accounts blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (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.

Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about your edit warring at Amphibia (TV series)? —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understood my mistake and I promise that it won't happen again. I got a reliable source for rugby services that I can send to you if you want to see it and if you think it is not correct, you can block me again and I will accept the fate..

I hope you can consider this Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source? Please put the link here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't send the screenshots here as it is a twitter DM so I will upload it to my Flickr and send you the flickr link Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter DMs are not reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beanieshark22, this user appears to be trying to evade their block. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that quacking is loud. Both blocked now. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the proof of the reliable source for rugby services https://www.flickr.com/photos/195516448@N05/52083470890/in/dateposted-public/ Beanieshark22 (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot cite social media PMs/DMs as they are not published and available to the public. Providing us a link to the DM is a waste of time; we're never going to accept it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not answering for your sockpuppeting, and you’re not hearing our “no” to your link, so much so that you couldn’t even exhibit different behaviors on said sockpuppet. It just reinforces the initial WP:CIR reasoning for your block CreecregofLife (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]