User talk:VideoGamer123456

March 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 noticeboards.
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 SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water, you may be blocked from editing. Magitroopa (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your policies are unfair and rather strict. I did what y'all asked and added a reference, but y'all didn't accept it and discarded it for a stupid reason. It seems y'alls site is run by a.i. controlled robots instead of actual humans. The thing I keep editing into the article is actual fact, but y'all keep denying the truth over some dumb policy that it supposedly broke. VideoGamer123456 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Zootopia have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Zootopia was changed by VideoGamer123456 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956625 on 2022-09-28T14:12:08+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Halloween Ends has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Halloween Ends 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VideoGamer123456. Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Halloween Ends. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries and disruptive editing

I hope you are aware that things like these do not go unnoticed and will eventually result in a block if this behavior does not cease. Deleting hidden text informing you of current consensus while reinstating material that editors agreed to exclude cannot possibly be summarized simply as "changing the top part of the wiki page". Considering that you've been warned about these types of edits several times now, one can only conclude that you are trying to purposefully mislead. I am warning you again: Please accurately represent the edits you make in your edit summaries.

Your edits, reaching as far back as March, are consistently disruptive. Note that once another editor has reverted you on policy grounds, you should under no circumstance simply reinstate the disputed material. It is then upon you to engage with dissenting editors and work towards a consensus. With one exception in March, you've been completely unresponsive to these concerns. This behavior, too, will result in a block if continued. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/VideoGamer123456. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]