User talk:Wanheda

Welcome

Hello, Wanheda, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

January 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Bellamy Blake with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Max: Fury Road

Hi there. I just wanted to explain why I reverted your edit to Mad Max: Fury Road. We've got got two aggregators there, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Both of them give an overview of the film's reception. Unsourced editorializing by editors isn't really necessary. While the film was in cinemas, consensus on the talk was was to avoid wording along the lines of "the film received critical acclaim" as too promotional and not neutral enough. Now that it's been out of cinemas for a while, you might consider starting a new talk page discussion about the film's reception. Perhaps we can find a good source that retrospectively discusses it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're Wrong

The results in the chart were already announced. You kept reverting it so many times look at the elimination chart in American Idol (season 1) you will understand. Channel1235 (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am warning you

The results was announced already. I have told you so many times. You think that i'm wrong? You will know Channel1235 (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the chart carefully on the previous season you will see Channel1235 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I vandalized the chart? you're the one who started it first Channel1235 (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I learned how to edit properly. This is not vandalism the results were announced already so i also do this for the elimination chart Channel1235 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not personal reference and vandalism

It's already announced. That is how the chart i made is legit. Channel1235 (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every elimination chart on Idol is different this is not vandalism. And the Wild Card Round is announced it's not Top 14 Round. Channel1235 (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Useless? There is proof of the news no matter what number of contestants are that is also called Wild Card Round Channel1235 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the link http://www.ew.com/recap/american-idol-season-15-episode-15 Channel1235 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the link again. I will not stop until i show you proof Channel1235 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Your recent editing history at American Idol (season 15) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit-warring at American Idol (season 15), continuing despite being warned. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I think this block is unnecessary and that I was wrongfully blocked due to the other users actions. I get that I still edited after receiveing the 'edit warring' warning but if you look you can clearly see one of my newest edits after being warned it to revert the chart vandalism don't by the other user again even after being issued a warning. Instead of stopping the user decided to edit anonymously so they can continute to add edits that were unnecessary. I even went to there talk page and and tried to tell them that edit like that aren't relevant however the user (User:Channel1235 blanked the page and ignored me. Please respond as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.38.243 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2016 February 26 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you

understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 26 February 2016 (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.

When your block ends, Wanheda, please discuss content disputes on the article talk page, where other editors can offer their opinion instead of getting yourself into an edit war. As you have found out, in an edit war, normally all parties receive a block, there are no winners. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wanheda. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Wanheda. 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]

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/9janedoe999. Thank you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Wanheda. 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]