User talk:Moonelson

Welcome!

Hello, Moonelson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Blythwood (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to List of New Trier High School alumni has 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: List of New Trier High School alumni was changed by Moonelson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876892 on 2018-10-17T19:15:10+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Top Wing has 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: Top Wing was changed by Moonelson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957591 on 2018-10-20T22:53:09+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Village (2019 TV series). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that imdb is not considered to be a reliable source and you have provided no other sources to justify your edits. You need to discuss this matter at the article's talk page and seek consensus for your changes. Simply restoring them without discussion will very likely lead to you being blocked from editing. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Carol's Second Act

The article Carol's Second Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced article about an upcoming TV program that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AussieLegend (✉) 17:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Carol's Second Act. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Corn and Peg has been proposed for deletion

Proposed deletion of Corn and Peg

The article Corn and Peg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article only has one sentence and has only unsourced content which is in violation of WP:V User has done this before on other articles, and has been also been warned before.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd appreciate you contributing to Wikipedia, please try making your articles bigger than only one sentence and cite your sources. Please consider improving the article and citing your sources. Thanks in advance, Kind regards TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely for improving the article. TruthToBeSpoken (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I'm Nardog. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Current War, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Corn and Peg

Hello, Moonelson,

Thanks for creating Corn and Peg! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corn and Peg moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Corn and Peg, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Corn and Peg (January 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to show notability - Note blogs are not reliable sources

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Corn and Peg and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Corn and Peg, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonelson! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fashion Ally, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Kaufman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Corn & Peg

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Corn & Peg. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Draft:Corn and Peg. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Draft:Corn and Peg. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:Draft:Corn and Peg|the article's talk page]].

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Moonelson, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Draft:Corn and Peg have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello. Your recent edit to Klein High School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Gab4gab (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Robert Iscove, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, your too late, Many movies theatres, articles, ISpot, and other information that have it already.

On the other hand IMDb doesn't show a credit and they generally add credits that don't belong as opposed to missing them. We can't use IMDb as a source but they are pretty accurate on above line crew as most of that is from IMDb Pro and DGA and WGA. Also until a film is actually released to the public we can't use embedded credits in the film. IMDb generally gets updated pretty quickly with actual credits then too. If you do have a source that meets WP:IRS requirements, add it to the article as support. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wonder Park, you may be blocked from editing. Mahveotm (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop thinking about who done it til its confirmed!!! Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Angry Birds Movie 2 or Abominable, you may be blocked from editing. 2600:387:1:811:0:0:0:97 (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abominable (2019 film). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted that you have persisted to add unsourced information to multiple articles including Wonder Park, Abominable (2019 film), The Angry Birds Movie 2, Wendie Malick among others and have edit warred to retain the unsourced information. This has been done despite numerous warnings to cease. And this kind of comment doesn't help your case. Before returning to editing, you should review the Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:No original research, WP:CRYSTAL and Future Films, as well as Edit warring. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Abominable (2019 film), you may be blocked from editing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Corn & Peg. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Despite all previous requests and the previous block, you immediately returned to the previous edit wars and added unsourced [1] as well as false information [2]. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:55, 5 March 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Abominable_(2019_film)&diff=886367993&oldid=886367953 please this is the best edit that Editmaster4 made on this and it's also sourced information.

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

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:01, 5 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.