User talk:Mr.Shadow514

October/November 2024

Hi Mr.Shadow514,

You've been here for two months now, I hope you like it here. As you probably have noticed, some of your edits are reverted. Have you taken the time to get to know the guidelines? You might learn a thing or two. And like I said in our previous discussion, you seem to be into video games and there is an active WikiProject that aims to improve video game-related material.

In this edit, you wrote a correct edit summary: there is no correlation between critical reception and financial success. Shitty films make a ton of money all the time, right? Well, you added the word 'but', stating that despite its poor reception it did make money. But those two things aren't connected, 'but' suggests there is.

Software is written in the present tense. RenderWare still is a video game engine, even if nobody uses it anymore.

A common error you'll see often is mixed to negative, or mixed to positive. Mixed doesn't mean 'medium', 'mediocre', 'middle of the road', but means both positive and negative.

Please take a look at the guidelines, you'll learn a thing or two. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline are you referring to? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see the colored lettering in the word 'guidelines'? I made what is called a piped link to WP:MOS, which is a wikilink to the guidelines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i see. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, when your saying something on paragraph 2, even though you do agree what the summary says, when you switched back from "but" to "and", your making it appear like mixed reception and box-office faliure are similar, and that's not how it works. Just sayin. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's two separate things, critical reception and box-office performance. If you like, you can also make it into two sentences: 'it was a critical failure. It was a box-office success' or something similar. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr.Shadow514, I explained before that adding a small word like 'but' changes the meaning of sentence. So you were right to remove 'also'. Pitbull is an American, born to Cuban parents. Describing his work, do not unnecessarily call him Cuban-American. Asking another user if they think if "it would be really cool if all the old 3D Sonic games would be playable on PS4/PS5 through emulation" is not what a user talk page is for. Wikipedia is not a social media site. Talk pages, including other users' talk pages, are intended to help build a better Wikipedia. Since it's their talk page, I'll leave it up to Sergecross73. I have to ask you again to please, take a moment to familiarise yourself with the guidelines. Or check out the WP:WELCOME page. You might learn a thing or two! And if you can't find your way around, you can ask a question at the WP:TEAHOUSE, or ask me or another friendly editor. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but anyways regading from the beginning, what's wrong with Cuban-American? Other articles from the album does that and it's his Spanish album. And besides, he can be called whenever he wants.Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because cultural heritage, ethnic background, skin color, sexuality, religion, etc. isn't necessary to mention. See WP:NATIONALITY. What do you mean, "he can be called whenever he wants"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable for being a Cuban-American. You can't be strict over every single thing. It doesn't work like that. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed you to a relevant guideline. Articles do not unnecessarily mention ethnicity. You're free not to agree with it, but ignoring it is considered disruptive. Have you taken the time to check out the guidelines yet? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Guideline. It only implies that the guidelines are about the any actors themselves, not about albums articles. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be common sense, if a main article about a person doesn't mention it, any work they created wouldn't do so either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My other question would be this. Even if things are or were notable, why don't they sometimes allow them? Depending what it is. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? What wouldn't be allowed? Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED so there are plenty of articles about controversial or even shocking topics. Occasionally there might be a cautionary hatnote, like the article on suicide for instance, which has a hatnote for suicide prevention. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example is this. Even if Pitbull is notable as "Cuban-American", you sometimes don't allow that all because ethnicity aren't mentioned. It dosent have to be. And there is no guideline saying you can't add race on songs articles or albums. And besides, on most articles about Camila Cabello and their songs, they use "Cuban-American" even though they wouldn't necessarily use that, but yet they use that term. So what's the difference? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is largely voluntary, there's only so much that can be done. Thousands of articles still need copy-editing, additional references to be added or maybe even outright deleted. I am not familiar with Camila Cabello, but likewise, it's unnecessary to mention. And it's not that I personally do not allow you to mention ethnicity, there is an established guideline says so. And going against guidelines is considered disruptive. Imagine seeing "Black", "Jewish", "Orthodox Catholic", "gay", "blind", "disabled" or whatever description you can come up with: it's unnecessary to point out. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, for other things, that's a different story. Also, Camila Cabello is a singer who was part of the famous girl group Fifth Harmony, who left the group in 2016 and became famous for her solo hits. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, 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. DonIago (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i could handle the source. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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.

Follow WP:BRD. Your edit is being contested by 2 separate editors. Stop trying to make it. Wait until there is a WP:CONSENSUS. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry for edit warring. I dont mean to do that on purpose. I just get frustrated that you would unnecessarily disagree about the fact that you never let term be allowed. I did look at most of the guidelines. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting rather concerned, as it really feels like every discussion you take part in, whether it's on this talk page or article talk pages, ends up with you saying you don't understand the most basic things being explained to you. Instead, you seem to resort to repeating the same weak arguments no one agrees with. I can't tell if you are being stubborn, or struggle with reading comprehension, but you really need to make a better effort to understand others. Wikipedia is a collaborative website. You need to be able to work with others. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please stop needlessly tinkering with labels. Every other edit you make, you're arguing with someone about mentioning nationality, musical roles, whether or not to force the term "sequel" into article - it needs to stop. Find something more constructive to do. Please reflect on why your edits are so frequently undone. This can't continue on like this, you need to change your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how you feel, but it's just that it gets repeating and acting like we love repetitive the same artist, depending who it is, and that's not how it works like that. That's all. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but editors who continue making the same mistakes without learning, and continue to tax the community's time and patience with errors and time wasting, generally eventually find themselves blocked from editing for being disruptive. If you don't change your ways, I expect the same will eventually happen to you. Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sergecross73, after the discussion about Big Boi, I feel this is a final straw, after ProtoDrake's revert they reinstated their revision, it's WP:OTHERSTUFF, and what is particularly antagonistic is the phrasing "Your lucky I'm adding a reliable source" (sic, WP:CIR again). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Soetermans, sorry for being antagonistic for what i said in the Tomb Raider: Legend artcles talk page. I will agree that's it is an emulation and not necessarily a re-released, but it was also stated by reliable sources. Sometimes, if i wanted to make another sentence to prove it's really the truth, i add a source from a reliable source which is what i did. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of IcyTwat

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on IcyTwat, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome

Hi Mr.Shadow514. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was trying to edit a new article about the hip hop duo Thotwatt, who were created by A$AP Rocky. I'm also trying to make sure I add sources. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello Mr.Shadow514! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Adding a Wikipedia page about a hip hop duo, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thottwat moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Thottwat. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and the sources are unreliable. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fine. We just all gotta wait until there more sources coming along. Thanks for letting me know. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kay Hanley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

In addition to the variety of issues documented on your talk page, I'm now convinced that you are engaging in block evasion and sock puppetry. Looking at their talk page, it's very clear you are also User talk:SuperSuperSonic208, who is also blocked due to findings at SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperSuperSonic207.

Thus is not allowed, let alone all the problematic you were making unrelated to this, so you are blocked from editing indefinitely. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, on the Kay Hanley article, why revert back to using back to Dorchester, Massachusetts instead of keeping Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know Dorchester is a Boston neighborhood, to a separate city or a town. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thing the only reason why i got a new account is because i don't really know how much to evade to get back. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making another account to evade your block was unfortunately 100% not the correct way to handle it, and other editors made that pretty clear to you at your old accounts, so you're unlikely to get any sympathy from anyone there.

Following the WP:STANDARDOFFER is your only path left. Take some time away from Wikipedia. Even beyond the block evasion, I was extremely close to blocking you for disruptive editing anyways, and looking back at your prior accounts, they're the same sort of issues you've gotten in trouble for in the past too. You are simply not ready to be editing Wikipedia. You need to find something else to do for now. Sergecross73 msg me 18:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see what you said, but sometimes I'm trying to prove something right, but yet all you do is disagree on something, and I don't like that. Sometimes I add sources, like the Tomb Raider: Legend artcle, but you and Soetermans disagree about the source. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite aware. That's part of the problem, your insistence to change things to your preferred, subjective tastes, and inability to understand anyone's attempt to explain things to you. You've exhausted countless editors with your obsession with removing or adding certain phrases, labels, or terms. I've asked you multiple times to find something more constructive to do, and every time you've ignored said requests and gone straight back into it. If you ever try to appeal your block, I recommend explaining how you plan on staying away from this sort of stuff moving forward. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like what's more constructive and and staying away from moving stuff like what when appealing the block? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else that interests you. There was nothing wrong with your efforts to add sources about films getting a DVD/Blu-Ray release, for example. More things like that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, gottya on that. I've been doing this before. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, on the Kay Hanley article, why revert back to using back to Dorchester, Massachusetts instead of keeping Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts? You know Dorchester is a Boston neighborhood, to a separate city or a town. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BANREVERT. I'm sure someone will fix it if it needs fixing. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, that makes sense. But how? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, Sergecross73, why do you revert many of my edits? Isn't Machine Gun Kelly also a musician? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:BANREVERT? That's going to be your answer for any questions like this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sergecross73, i actually did read the guidelines, but i do not see the steps, only paragraphs. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for Sockpupperty

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).

Mr.Shadow514 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was sorry for sockpupperting on Wikipedia. It's just that i didn't know how to evade the block at the time or that when they say contract a user for a block meaning like call them. I realize that i would get block for the second time. The only reason that i wasn't going to get block was because when i was signing to Wikipedia, i was rather using a different name so that you don't have to think it was me. But i realize i would get blocked over this. When i was blocked on Wikipedia on my SuperSuperSonic207 account for the first time, i then tried to use SuperSuperSonic208 in order to get back on editing, until i realize i was blocked for the second time, this time i was sockpupperting/abusing accounts. And then, when i thought about using a different name, thinking people would not recognize that im the same user, i used a different name Mr.Shadow514, which i've been using that account for at least 5 months up until i was blocked for the third time, still for sockpupperting/ abusing accounts. I didn't think i would ever get blocked, but i did. I'm very sorry for this. I also just wanna give you guys a shoutout to other users and all with you guys a Happy New Year's Day 2025 🎇🎆🧨🎉🎊.Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As was stated in the discussion above, I would recommend taking the standard offer for individuals who have inappropriately used multiple accounts: do not edit Wikipedia for six months under any username or IP address, then come back and request an unblock. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2025 (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.

My apologies for Sockpupperty 2

Significa liberdade, you didn't really have to decline that. I get it what your saying and and I did check the link of the guidelines a little bit. But I promise that I was really sorry for sockpupperting. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she did. As I already told you, the only hope for editors caught block evading is the WP:STANDARDOFFER. That requires waiting at least 6 months since you were caught block evading. It hasn't even been 6 days, let alone 6 months. No unblock request is going to work prior to waiting 6 months, so there's no point in trying before then. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why your strict. Sometimes I try to improve pages, but you think that's disruptive editing, but sometimes when I remove something when it’s not value to the article, it sometimes gets reverted back to where it was, either by you and any other users. I know you would still feel very strict considering that it’s Wikipedia, even when I'm honest and respectful. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but as close as I was getting to blocking you for disruptive editing, in the end, I blocked you for block evasion. And there's no immediate path back to editing from that. Sergecross73 msg me 22:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regards this, now that you are blocked for block evasion, the only thing you should be using your talk page for is appealing your block evasion. As you've already admitted to it, (and it was blatantly obvious anyways) there is no hope for an unblock for at least 6 months. Please stop arguing about other things, or I'll take away your ability to comment on your talk page. And if you make new accounts, they'll be immediately blocked as soon as they're caught.

It's time to step away and do something else. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's appealing supposed to mean that? Telling or something? Just a question. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:UNBLOCK request. Sergecross73 msg me 23:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, right. I've seen some of the guideline. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so final response:

There's only one possible path to being able to edit Wikipedia.

Wait at least 6 months.
Completely read over WP:UNBLOCK, WP:GAB, and WP:STANDARDOFFER.
Make your unblock request.

Additional notes:

If you make any more comments unrelated to that, your talk page access will be revoked.
If you make/edit under any other accounts while this block is active, those accounts will be blocked, and it'll make it extremely unlikely that you ever get your account unblocked. Do not do this.

Best of luck to you in whatever else you decide to do with your life for the next 6+ months in the meantime. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for letting me know. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]