User talk:X01.1997

X01.1997, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi X01.1997! 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 Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Editorializing about reception and box office performance

Please don't add your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles about what you think the reception was and how the film performed. We can not label something a "box office bomb", for example, because this is a complicated financial analysis that people get paid a lot of money to analyze. See this news article for a discussion of how a film can be a box office bomb even though it made more money than its budget. Simply comparing the budget to the gross is simplistic and not how sources determine whether something was a bomb. Likewise, you can't invent your own critical consensus, though you could quote/paraphrase the consensus from Rotten Tomatoes or another reliable source. If you think that critics "reviled" a film, you need to cite a source that uses this word – this is a very non-neutral term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Thirteen Days (film), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please 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. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jodie Foster; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Binksternet (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jodie Foster. Block evasion by User:RDX451. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. 5 albert square (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]