User talk:MPedits

MPedits, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi MPedits! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Shark Tale. 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) 10:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

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 notice boards.
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 The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, you may be blocked from editing. You've now made an incorrect edit and been reverted three times here. Warner Brothers is the distributor (i.e. they handle physical distribution of retail packaging), not the Publisher. -- ferret (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ferret I realize now that my edits made to the Witcher 3 article were false and I apologize for that, but you also deleted my edits made to the List of video games developed by Rare as shown here:

|Beat 'em up |Xbox One, Microsoft Windows |MicrosoftXbox Game Studios |2019[1] |- |Untitled New Project |TBA |Xbox One, Microsoft Windows |Xbox Game Studios |TBA |} This was unfair as this information was officially confirmed by head of Xbox Phil Spencer so I would appreciate it if you would please revert the page back to my original edit. Thank You

User: Ferret

User:ferret I realize now that my edits made to the Witcher 3 article were false and I apologize for that, but you also deleted my edits made to the List of video games developed by Rare as shown here:

|Beat 'em up |Xbox One, Microsoft Windows |MicrosoftXbox Game Studios |2019^[1] |- |Untitled New Project |TBA |Xbox One, Microsoft Windows |Xbox Game Studios |TBA |} This was unfair as this was officially confirmed by head of Xbox Phil Spencer so I would appreciate it if you would please revert the page back to my original edit. Thank You MPedits (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "There's a new Battletoads game". Eurogamer.net. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

You're blocked for disruptive/unsourced editing. I don't think arguing that I unfairly reverted your unsourced edit on another article is in your favor. Wikipedia is built on reliable sourcing, and you need to read up on that, at WP:RS. Even with a source though, we typically don't list products that have no official announcement or information, as there's nothing to say about them. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is fair enough, but you also reverted my edit of the publisher’s name for the 2019 Battletoads game back to Microsoft Studios even though they have since changed their name to Xbox Game Studios, so I would still appreciate you at least fixing that.

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).

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

Request reason:

Lesson has been learned MPedits (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: the block has expired. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2019 (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.

I realize now that the contributions made to the Witcher 3 article were false and I will not vandalize an article like that again. MPedits (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Xbox Game Studios. 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 notice boards.
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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lordtobi (✉) 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of studios

@MPedits: From your edits, the studios list under "Current" is separated by a mixture of continents ("America" and "Europe") and one country ("Canada"), apparently because "Canada isn’t a part of America’s economy". Separation by continent is what makes most sense as it pins down major geographical regions, and "America" can be reduced to "North America" because XGS has no studios in South America. Keep in mind that "America" is not synonymous with the United States, since this encyclopedia is read internationally. You the proceeded to edit war over this with silent reverts (purposely so that I wouldn't be alerted of the reverts) and with no comment three times.[1][2][3] This is considered disruptive editing, which you had been blocked for just last week. If you need a disputed change implemented, please seek consensus (either with the editor directly or via the article's talk page) first. Lordtobi (✉) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, consensus, and warnings

As asked for in previous edit summaries and talk page comments, you need to seek consensus should your edit not be accepted. This is the case with Xbox Game Studios. I left a message on your talk (seen above) which went through without a reply, and now you started removing Masem's recently added content for no reason, introduced an unsourced employee count, and on top reinserted your disputed edit, which you have not sought consensus for. This is considered edit warring. See WP:BRD, WP:EW and WP:STATUSQUO for more info. Given that the contentious editing is coming from your side, your warnings on my talk page are completely unwarranted. Keep in mind that had already been blocked for the same reason, and we'd not like to see that block happen again. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 20:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Xbox Game Studios

I wish to seek consensus with you, and I want to explain why I feel my edits organizing studios based on country rather than continent make the most sense. I believe that separating the studios by country makes the most sense as it will make it easier for the average reader to find a studio based in a specific country. For example, if the average reader is looking for a studio based in the United States, having U.S. based and Canadian based studios separated makes it easier for the reader to find a studio based in the country he/she wants to work in compared to having them organized by continent, which just makes it confusing for the average reader if they want to look for a studio based in the United States but finds that they are lumped into a section with Canadian Studios, which has a different economy from the United States. I hope you will at least take this into consideration before forcing your own vision onto the article. Many Thanks, MPedits (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Sonic Unleashed 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JOE BRO 64 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attempting to start an edit war. You are the one who is trying to start one by reverting my edits unjustly.

That's incorrect. Read WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. You don't make the same edit again. You discuss. JOE BRO 64 15:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were the one who reverted my edits first, therefore you started this.

That's 100% incorrect. You started the edit war by making a controversial edit which not one but two users disagreed with. You've been warned/blocked for edit warring before, and considering that you still seem to be having problems now I really think you don't understand our policies on it yet. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EW. JOE BRO 64 19:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting again, like you did here, is disruptive editing and will likely lead to a block. Do not restore content until there is consensus. Thank you. JOEBRO64 01:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And in response to this, uh, you need to be an admin to block another user. JOE BRO 64 01:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For pretending to block and editor, and continued editing without providing sources or getting a consensus, you are blocked for 1 Week (since it’s youre second block). Should you return to editing afterwards, please, no more fooling around, use sources, and follow WP:BRD to avoid edit warring. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK YOU

My edits to the Sonic Unleashed and Link to the Past articles were sourced and factual! It was completely unfair to block me for those edits! FUCK YOU FOR DOING SO!!!!!! MPedits (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is only going to make your block longer, you realize. See WP:NPA. JOE BRO 64 01:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t fucking care. You two are assholes for blocking me because you couldn’t pull your heads out of your asses for one fucking minute!

Your outbursts aside - you didn’t get use sources or get a consensus on the talk page. Also, I can’t imagine how you’re going to rationalize threatening and pretending to block a user. There’s no excuse or reason for that... Sergecross73 msg me 01:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair, but it’s still bullshit that you two just immediately reverted my edits without even at least trying to speak with me first and try to come to an agreement.

And the fact that you haven’t responded yet just proves that you don’t have a good answer for that, thus proving my point.

Have you actually read the WP:BRD we keep linking you to? If you did, you’d understand. If you make a change, and it’s challenged, you need to stop making it until unless you start up a talk page discussion and get a WP:CONSENSUS on your favor. You didn’t do that on any of the pages in question. You just kept on reverting repeatedly. As was explained - not okay. Sergecross73 msg me 01:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I may weigh in, I (and other editors) explained to you multiple times the concepts of BRD and related guidelines, and how you should implement them when interacting with other editors. Wikipedia is not anarchical, we have a set of guidelines that are expected to be followed, and contiously breaking them simply leads to a block. You obviously knew this given your prior block not three weeks ago, and you observed that others apparently should be blocked for your behaviour in edits like this one and this one. Yet, you were warned that you could be blocked again, and are now surprised that those "assholes" actually just blocked you for what you pretended to be blocking others for. This, your repeated offences of adding unsourced information (which you later pass off as "sourced and factual") and then edit warring over it, and several NPA incidents (including this section's title) do not paint a good picture of your editing behaviour. Wikipedia invites everyone to edit here as long as they play by the rules. You wouldn't go to the Olympics just to perform a doping stunt. Please take into consideration our guideline, should you consider returning to editing Wikipedia. Lordtobi (✉) 09:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell Lordtobi!?

My edits to the Castlevania, Dargaud, and Force Unleasehd articles were factual!!! Anyone who could be bothered to do 5 fucking minutes of research knows that! But NOOO!!! Just because they, “wEReN’t SoURcED!!!!” you went ahead and reverted them without even trying to reacha consensus with me. Your revertions of edits made to other articles, like Sonic Unleashed and Revenge of the Sith I can accept, but your edits to the articles I listed earlier? No, that is not fair. MPedits (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I spent five minutes researching every unsourced edit you made, I'd spend several days doing nothing but someone else's job. If you don't bother sourcing your edits, why should anyone else? Go give WP:BURDEN a read — "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Lordtobi (✉) 22:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough, I’ll try and do a better job with sourcing once I’m unblocked. But with Force Unleashed, the INFO WAS ALREADY THERE. I was just making it visible so that readers don’t get confused. Reverting that was completely pointless and a really dick move to do it now when I’m blocked and can’t even try to reach a consensus on the game’s talk page

Developers that made minor contributions or ports are not mentioned in the infobox (per Template:Infobox video game#Syntax guide: Individual development tasks handled by different companies (e.g., scenario, programming) and ports should not be mentioned in the infobox but in the article text instead.). Using efn notes is a loophole in this guideline editors like to exploit to still put the info in the infobox without forcing it onto every reader. Notes also provide more room for explanation than parentheses. I believe someone mentioned this before but it might have gone under. Lordtobi (✉) 23:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s stupid. Regardless of how little or how major their involvement was, if they were involved with the development, they should be listed in the infobox. And as for the sourcing, the only real reason I haven’t done much sourcing is because I don’t entierly understand how to add a source to an article.

But by those means, every new AAA title would stretch dozens if not hundereds of studios, of which the majority was just be a handful of people in China/India doing outsourced art work. Lordtobi (✉) 23:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just talking on the development and porting side. Not putting that info in the info box makes it more confusing for the average reader if they want to know specifically who developed the game.

Then it boils down to what you define as "development". Programming? Design? Artistic work? It would be hard to keep this a) complete, and b) consistent, which is generally why we tend to simplify as much as possible (hance the guideline), and give additional context for further related, but possibly not as important, information somewhere else within the article. Talking sources, you edited your above comment to reflect issues you encountered while trying to include sources. If you need help with that, you can follow the tutorial at WP:Tutorial/Citing sources or ask other editors to help you cite a specific site. I also encourage you to check out the other tutorials you can find through the headers on the page of the tutorial I linked. Lordtobi (✉) 23:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry for butting in, but there's a problem with you, User:MPedits, and that's how rude you are to other users just because you don't agree with them. Feels to me like it's a personal attack as you did say "Fuck You" to Lordtobi in a verbal way. Maybe you need to change your behaviour or stay away from Wikipedia. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello. Regarding your edit-summary comments at Illumination (company), it appears you have been re-adding this material for the last few days. This is the first time I have edited the article since November, 2017. You may want to take a look at WP:EW before you start slinging accusations around. This edit reverted eight other editors. It's not helpful when a new editor lectures experienced editors on how "we" do things, either. WP:CONSENSUS works by agreement, not ownership. Several other editors have removed this material, so the burden is on you to gain consensus on the article's talk page. These sources seem pretty routine, and the information still speculative. When more sources are published, we can reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know how edit warring works around here. I will even admit I have been guilty of it in the past, but Trivialist is the one who is guilty of edit warring here. He made a bold edit that many people disagreed with that was reverted, and he proceeded to continuously revert it back to his version without even attempting to reach a consensus. It is that behavior that got me in trouble before, so he should not get off scott free even though he is doing the same exact things that has resulted in others being banned. That will just promote this behavior and tell other editors that it’s okay to do that sort of thing. MPEdits (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2019 (EST)

Okay, that makes sense. I don't agree that's what's happening, but I respect that position. The way to address this is to discuss this content on the talk page. I could start a section on this for you, but I think it would be better if you did. Don't focus on someone else's behavior, or other articles. Just explain the change you want to make. Be the bigger person, because nobody else is going to help you if they think this is just a grudge. I and others will respond, and if we reach consensus, you can make the edit, and point to the talk page as a reason. Someone else acting badly doesn't mean you also get to act badly. It also doesn't mean that you are right and they are wrong. Sorry if this is rude, but most of us don't really care about that, anyway. The point is to build an encyclopedia, after all. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being understanding about this. I will start a talk page regarding this soon to discuss what to do about the edit for once the page is unblocked so that we can reach a consensus. Sincerely, MPEdits (talk) 20:04 , 1 June 2019 (EST)

Join the discussion at Talk:Illumination (company)/Archives/2023/December#Films in development, which another editor started. Do not continue to edit war. I remind you that personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia policy, per WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will remind you that slow-burn edit warring is still edit warring. Please discuss on the article's talk page. As I said on the talk page, there are serious source problems with this content. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if you click 'revert' or just click edit on an old revision. Editing disruptively is should never be an option. Especially if you reintroduce content added by vandals. Lordtobi (✉) 16:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it was NOT vandalism. It was a rumor. The article mentions other rumors that have been associated with casting for the movie. Did it occur to you that you could have just changed the wording to make it clearer that it was just a rumor or are you just that much of a dumbass? MPedits (✉) 15:29, 17 June 2019 (EST)

No, you were reintroducing vandalous edits from other users, as I have said. There was literally line "Removed section as irrelevant to article." in the middle of the article, someone changed the RD of Twin Snakes to 2003, although it clearly released in 2004, and so on. I rolled back to Smeagol's revision, but kept reintroducing these errors. Please review changes you make before hitting save. Then, there would be no use in calling me a dumbass. Lordtobi (✉) 19:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just erased those edits manually and moved on. There was no reason to take other worthwille edits down with them. And if you try and tell me that it’s easier to do it that way, then that just tells me you are lazy and selfish. MPedits (✉) 15:50, 17 June 2019 (EST)

I am lazy, no doubt about that, but it is better to bring an article to a clean revision instead of piercing through the individual edits with the potential danger of leaving vandalism in, or making even more mistakes. In this very scenario, the only "worthwhile" edit was the sentence that the script was completed, the rest was either vandalism, partial revert of vandalism, or the misinformation that Isaac was playing Solid Snake. The rollback allows all involved users to reflect on the edits made and reintroduce parts that were well-meant correctly. You did not give me, or anyone else, this time, instead you reverted to the broken state. You did not even take into account my main worries expressed in the edit summary, the misinformation. You restored it there, and on the actor's article, with no hassle. That said, you could have used the same reflective time to just insert the correct parts by themselves, without re-inserting misinformation and vandalism. I'm not sure why you would call me a dumbass, lazy and selfish because I rollback to prevent short-term damage, while you refuse to not rollback either. Lordtobi (✉) 20:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Your recent editing history at Illumination (company) 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell no. I am not going to take the fall for this when Trivialist is the one in the wrong. He’s the one who has been reverting the page back to the way he thinks it should be without even trying to reach a consensus when other editors have clearly shown to disagree with him. I’m the one who has been trying to stop this from turning into a full blown edit war, and I refuse to be seen as the one who started it.

Signature links

Hi, just wanted to let you know that the links in your signature have a small typo—they both link to "MPEdits" instead of "MPedits". (This isn't intended as a snarky reply to your message; just wanted to let you know so that other users aren't confused like I was about getting a message from an apparently nonexistent user.) Cheers, Trivialist (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to mention the same problem, but I see Trivialist got here first. You are perfectly free to make your signature show as "MPEdits" if you wish to, but it needs to link to "MPedits", so please correct it. Alternatively I can change your user name to "MPEdits" if you prefer. I see you have continued to use the faulty signature after receiving the message above; please make sure that you deal with the problem before making any more edits using your signature. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've dealt with it now. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Super Smash Bros. Ultimate. 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 notice boards.
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. Please read MOS:SEASONS. JOE BRO 64 18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you’ve made this edit three times now. Is there something about MOS:SEASONS you’re not understanding? Because you don’t get to just knowingly ignore it. Between this and WP:EW, you’re extremely close to another block. Please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 21:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Brie Larson, you may be blocked from editing until further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jumanji

Bro can you stop putting a release date that has not been official on the Jumanji page. I’m tired of you putting that Dec 13 date and have to revert it mulitple times. Just wait until they officially confirm it. 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is official. Can you stop removing it? I’m tired of you getting rid of it and having to revert it multiple times. MPedits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It’s not official though I’m going to keep removing because nowhere it says that date. 2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. You can just tell that to the admins when they block you from editing if you do it again. MPedits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 2 July 2019 (EST)

Well nice going, you asshole. You got us both blocked. This wouldn’t have happened if you just fucking went to the talk page to reach a consensus or, even better, just fucking stopped removing the official date!!! MPedits (talk) —added 20:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

Between the continued edit warring, and the continued blatant ignoring of basic guidelines, both of which you’ve been warned about many times, you are blocked for 1 month. When you return, I hope you’ll stop acting like this. Listen to warnings you’re receiving from many parties. Ignoring them will get you blocked again, for longer. Sergecross73 msg me 00:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What. The. Fuck. The anonymous user was the one started the edit war!!!! Why am I the one getting punished for it!? Why am I always the one getting blamed for this shit!? MPedits (talk) —added 20:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

He was blocked as well, and the page was locked in case he comes back as another IP address. Now, do you really not understand how you violated WP:EW, WP:3RR, and MOS:SEASONS multiple times now, despite multiple editors notifying you of these violations multiple times? Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. I’m just confused as to why, even though in this situation I wasn’t the one who screwed up, I’m getting banned for a month.

I guess it’s not like it matters anyways. I’m deleting my account so you won’t have to worry about me anymore. Good riddens, right? MPedits (talk) —added 21:04, 2 July 2019 (EST)

You were blocked because you repeatedly violated the rules. The rules you just said you were “aware” of. I don’t understand where your confusion is coming from. You were warned of the rules. You broke the rules. You were aware of the rules. You were blocked. It’s as simple as that. Sergecross73 msg me 02:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sergecross73 I am deeply sorry for making disruptive edits, and I promise I will only make actual helpful edits from here on out. Because of this I would appreciate it if you could please help me get my account unbanned. MPedits msg me 02:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On getting this account unbanned.

To any administrators who are seeing this, I apologize for my past actions on this site that have led to me being banned indefinitely. I wish to seek consensus with you and get this account unbanned so that I can make useful contributions to the site. MPedits (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "There's a new Battletoads game". Eurogamer.net. Retrieved 2018-06-11.

[1]