User talk:Dr.saze

Expectations

Please refrain from reverting edits, as the reviews you keep adding are unreliable, and you do not need to point out that the negative review is the only one, the reader will get that. If you keep going you will be reported for violating the 3RR rule. Thanks! 2601:48:8100:6D8A:E1F4:4F8B:4B9:790C (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2601:48:8100:6D8A:E1F4:4F8B:4B9:790C, first thing, I spent 30 minutes looking for your message left here, the newer messages the lower supppose to be on the talk page. And second thing, I can back off, but it will not be easy with me. If you do not stop bullying me be prepared for revenge. It is awful what you all people here are doing. Shame on you. Dr.saze (talk) 9:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn’t bullying, it’s making sure that the information we’re presenting here is factual and unbiased. You clearly have a bias towards Bebe, and while that’s fine in life, on Wikipedia we try to avoid bringing bias into things. Also, you’re clearly very emotional about this, as you keep talking about all the work you’ve put into the page and how you’re going to “get revenge” on me, whatever that means. Might I suggest you stop taking this so seriously? It is just a website, after all. 2601:48:8100:6D8A:4D10:5B31:4260:DB75 (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I see you are a new user to Wikipedia, and welcome to you (I'll leave a formal welcome after this). There are many, many guidelines and policies about editing and how to approach it, and some of those relate to edit warring, which is what you are doing in trying to restructure the information on a few pages. When one of your edits is challenged or reverted, it is not good practice to just revert to what you want. You should discuss the matter calmly on the talk page and explain what you are doing and why you think it should be that way. There may be a very good reason why it is the way it currently is, and that will be explained to you; your way may also be better, and that should be taken into account. This is all summed up on the page WP:BRD, which you should get to grips with fairly quickly, as it will help you avoid problems further down the line. - SchroCat (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Recent changes patrol

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STOP

Please stop making disruptive edits.

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 notice boards.
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, you may be blocked from editing.

Stop your refactoring of AFI recognition in articles. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing without notice. Softlavender (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFI

Please stop straight away and read this before you continue.

As I mentioned above, we have several guidelines and policies to cover all sorts of things, including the formatting and presentation of information.

Single gobbets of fact in their own section are frowned upon (it's poor and lazy), particularly if their is another section dealing with awards, or honours or legacy;
Putting "American Film Institute recognition:" in bold is frowned upon;
Forcing the information into a bullet point when it could be better expressed as prose is frowned upon;
Not including a retrieval date for web pages is frowned upon;
Putting a retrieval date of 2012 when it's now 2016 is frowned upon.

You need to go back and clear up all the articles where the information is still shown in this format. You need to put it into a sentence, in an appropriate section, formatted properly and with the correct information 9and format) for the citation. Please do this now before you add this near-trivia to any more articles. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add that you should not change the spelling of "honour" to "honor" just because you want to. Please see WP:ENGVAR and respect that other users of English use different variations and different spellings. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

Stop your editing until you know what you are doing. Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and post on their talk page to ask for guidance. Or consult with SchroCat, above. Softlavender (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 17:21, 13 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm very sorry about this misunderstanding. I'm new and I'm not yet oriented well in the rules of editing. I only wanted to refill deficiencies about AFI's recognition concerning as films as actors and actresses. Please, don't block me. If you say me how to edit suitably, I will only help to your community.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: The block has already run its course; you are no longer blocked. I'd advise you to follow the advice of Anthony Bradbury below; otherwise there might be further blocks ahead. Huon (talk) 23:25, 15 July 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.

Have you read any of the warnings you received on this page? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No until this moment you blocked me. I didn't notice them. I'm really sorry.It must be terribly annoying situation for you all.User:Dr.saze (User talk:Dr.saze) 20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits have been removed; this is obviously distressing for you, and time-consuming for the editors who had to do it. Please, before diving in again, read the links included in the welcome near the top of this page, and learn how to edit. If you feel the urge to make changes to pages, put a comment in the article talk page first; all pages are watched by someone, and you will get an answer within a reasonably short time. There is, remember, no urgency to get things posted here.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reblocking I tried to make my editing better and attend to all your councils. I have refilled already the AFI's recognicition section by film Some Like It Hot. It was very difficult work for me, so I hope you will appreciate it and your prompts will be not too much. And I also wish you to welcome larger fill-up by good films. I will only go upon your councils. User:Dr.saze (User talk:Dr.saze) 19:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles

Hi I noticed you've been adding sections titled "American Film Institute recognition:" to articles. Please note that since these are section headers, the colon (":") is redundant and not really appropriate. Additionally, the Manual of Style suggests that "Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked." Let me know if you have any questions or if I'm mistaken. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse

I'm sorry for my fallible deletion of my user talk page. I wanted to create new article and I have clicked on the wrong cell, so my user talk page was deleted. It will not happen again, it was only a stupid mistake. Dr.saze (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick nits: I don't think you mean "excuse", but rather "apology". In German both translate to "Entschuldigung", but in English an "excuse" usually is giving a reason why something not your fault, while "apology" (now. i.e. since the late 18th century) essentially means "I'm sorry". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFI sections

As you've been informed before, it's not appropriate to include the AFI information as a separate section or sub-section. This is particularly appropriate to take on board given the guidance at MOS:HEADINGS which bides us not to use links in headings, as you have been doing. Please go back through all the articles you have included the AFI information on and:

If there is a larger section in which AFI is a subsection, take out the subsection coding to make it part of the larger section
If there is no larger section, take out the link in the section heading
Re-write the sections in text, not as rather lazy and sub-standard bullet points, which are inappropriate.

– SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Little Johnny Jones (film)

added links pointing to Broadway and Johnny Jones

Cuban Pete (film)

added a link pointing to Cuban Pete

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Dr.saze, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Deep in the Heart of Texas (film) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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 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 designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk 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 can, but please follow the steps in 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. Opencooper (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at The Prince of Egypt.

Continuing same section-style AFI related material. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so worried about my editing? I am just filling in the large AFI's section and yes, I am not doing in prose form but in points. I have three reasons why. First, it is more comfortable for me because they are so many backlogs for doing it in prose. Second, it is more panoramic because you can find every AFI recognition already in "Contents" and click straight in this section. And third, almost every AFI recognition which was already done (not by me) was in the points way and it seems you do not worry because it is still there (I can show you hundreds of examples). Plus, I have already recieved a few thankful notices for my editing and I have also added three articles about films which they were not here before because of it. But I do understand it's better in because of some of your rules. But couldn't we make a deal and avoid my blocking and deleting every single edit I have made? If some page is (like for example about The Prince of Egypt) too expensive to remake in my way for you you will write me a friend message and I will remake it in the prose form. And if you have problems about all my AFI edits allow me please to do it first in my way (in points) and then I will remake it in prose everything. Dr.saze (talk) 01:37, 06 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American Film Institute recognition

I see you have been asked to stop this editing before and apparently the work that other editors' are engaged in doesn't somehow register. Please stop this disruptive editing as you did with Sullivan's Travels. Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but can you tell me please what is so disruptive in my editing. You and some higher-placed editors are still writing me my editing is wrong, but editors of (by me) edited articles ONLY appreciates my work. Please, tell me and I will stop it in that way. I still do not get what is the matter with this undertitle: ====American Film Institute recognition====. Dr.saze (talk) 03:48, 06 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But thank you for really polite notification. I do not know whether or not you have read my answer to ☾Loriendrew☽ but it is the settlement I am trying to make with you all. Dr.saze (talk) 03:54, 06 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should immediately STOP adding the sort of material that senior editors are politely asking to refrain from. You should study the policies and guidelines that are suggested by those editors (see the above sections) especially the Manual of Style for film articles. It appears to me that the other editors are trying very hard to educate you but you are seemingly ignoring their attempts to help you understand. Please, please do your homework before you continue what is (clearly to me) disruptive editing. Pjefts (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am very sorry. I will immediately read it. Please, do not block me or delete my edits. I swear I will educate but I am new here and sometimes, I am so confused. I hope you understand. Please, tell it to other editors, too... You will see I will make progres. The editors of Modern Times, Dr. No and Gangs of New York have already thanked me and I hope it will continue. Dr.saze (talk) 04:10, 06 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still adding AFI information as you did at Rio Bravo (film) and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. You have been repeated warned to stop this activity and if you continue you may find yourself blocked from editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me what is so wrong to add some information if she misses here. Is it only the problem with the Manual of Style again? Because I have already written to WikiProject:Film and they have not answered me yet, so I thought it can be alright. Please, tell me and we could make a deal. Dr.saze (talk) 12:04, 08 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the contributions from other senior editors again. There is no "deal" to be made. David J Johnson (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Geronimo (1939 film)

added links pointing to William Henry, Henry Sharp and Paul Sloane

Deep in the Heart of Texas (film)

added links pointing to Pat O'Malley and Harry Woods

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the A Day at the Races (film) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style

I don't think anyone has really taken the time to thank you for adding sourced content about AFI accolades, and I think maybe that gets forgotten amid all the heated exchanges about MOS violations. So, before I say anything else, I'll say thank you for your efforts. Now, it looks to me like people have been giving you rather strongly worded warnings, but they haven't really been very specific about what exactly is so disruptive. I can't speak for anyone else, but in some of your edits, you're taking what is compliant with MOS:FILM#Accolades and rewriting it so that it is no longer compliant. For example, the guideline says small sections should generally be written in prose format. However, in this edit, you unnecessarily rewrote the section to be in list format. I think others have already pointed out that links don't belong in headers, and I think you've been correcting that yourself. Thanks for taking the time to do that. I know the MOS is pretty complicated and long, and a lot of people get really attached to it. However, the MOS helps our articles to have a uniform appearance and present content to our readers in the most readable (and accessible) way. I'm not aware of anywhere you can ask questions about the MOS, but WT:FILM has some very helpful and knowledgeable editors who can certainly help with understanding MOS:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FILM does have its own Talk page, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. I think it's reasonably well-patrolled, but WT:FILM is a good backup to be certain. DonIago (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring (again)

You need to stop edit warring on multiple pages with multiple editors. See WP:BRD: if one of your BOLD edits is REVERTED, you should DISCUSS on the talk page, not just edit way. – SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Donnie Brasco (film) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016 - Film

You have misidentified my reverts of your clearly incorrect edits to Rudy and Jeremiah Johnson as "edit warring" - I have never rv'd such edits before in these articles. The larger and more relevant question is why in the face of multiple reverts by experienced Wiki film editors up to and including a block for "disruptive editing" and all of the usually patient explanations here on your Talk page regarding why the separate AFI categories are inappropriate you persist in posting them into stable articles. This is especially puzzling when you post films that are simply nominated for an AFI list. Sensei48 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one except of you and SchroCat are not discontent. Many of other editors HAVE ALREADY THANKED ME. So please do not try to ruin me and we could be alright. Dr.saze (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look again above. Editors Softlavendar, jpgordon, Anthony Bradbury, OpenCooper, Loriendrew, Pjefts, and David J. Johnson have all tried to stop your disruptive editing, and admin Krakatoa Katie has blocked you for it. The preponderance of comments above have tried to explain to you that your edits are not considered constructive additions to the articles.Sensei48 (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - YES. I have done many mistakes. I was new here. But with all the editors I am having very good relationships now or we just get along and respect each other. I have gone a long, long way. And please do not teach me. For your information, main editors of articles like The Lady Eve, Modern Times, Dr. No, Gangs of New York, Gangs of New York or Evita have thanked me to my own address. And on this talk page the main MOS editor have gratefully thanked me. You can read it yourself. Dr.saze (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am afraid that you have misread the comments above. The only editor here who has "thanked" you is NinjaRobotPirate - and s/he does so as a preliminary to a polite but firm rejection of your edits. To quote from 9 August 2016 above: "in some of your edits, you're taking what is compliant with MOS:FILM#Accolades and rewriting it so that it is no longer compliant. For example, the guideline says small sections should generally be written in prose format. However, in this edit, you unnecessarily rewrote the section to be in list format. This is clear, pointed, and accurate per MOS - which states "If a film has only a handful of accolades, then a paragraph may be sufficient identifying them, and not necessarily be in its own section." Further, it is perplexing that you list as an "accolade" a mere nomination to an AFI list as in "The Hands That Built America" from Gangs of New York, which was one of several hundred nominees for that but which was not included in the actual list and therefore won nothing at all. In sum, these edits are contrary to Wikipedia style and do not add significant valuable information to the articles, especially when as with Gangs and others they include virtually meaningless nominees to a list of 100 in which they were not finally included. Persistence in this kind of editing and continual reverts could, of course, lead to further administrator action.Sensei48 (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a concern as to whether AFI nominations should be mentioned at all. There were 350 nominations for each of the "100" lists -- do we really want or need mentions of all 250 of those that didn't make the cut for each of those lists (and there are a lot of lists)? I think this merits something like an RfC on WikiProject Film and WikiProject Actors and Filmmmakers. Moreover, Dr.saze's competence in English is seriously lacking, which is another problem. All of these things, when added to his obliviousness to explanation and his resistance to correction, end up being very problematic. Softlavender (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about an RfC, but I do think at least a discussion of these changes should be initiated, given the scope of the edits involved. DonIago (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is so impedimental to mention few AFI's nominations beyond. Please, make something more useful than threaten me. I will discuss with you only if you want to propose something. But I cannot hear on your barking. You must comprehend I want the best for Wikipedia. You do not know how many work it is behind these editing.Dr.saze (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DonIago, I agree. Given that there are 13 lists, we are talking about over 3,000 edits this user, who demonstrably cannot write correct English, is going to be making in toto. At the very least I think he should desist until a consensus of experienced users is formed. If he is not willing to listen or desist until this is reviewed I believe this should go to ANI yet again (he has already been reported to ANI twice in the month and a half he has been editing on Wikipedia). Softlavender (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But I want to learn from you. I just do not understand sometimes. But if you have any wish I will try to comply you. Dr.saze (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding AFI nominations to articles. There is no consensus to add them, and they are insufficiently notable, and many very experienced editors have repeatedly objected to your doing so. Instead, post the information on the talk page of an article, and if someone deems the information sufficiently noteworthy for that article, they will then add it. You however lack the English skills and the Wikipedia competency to do that or to make those decisions yourself. Softlavender (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But if in some articles are AFI nominations why does it discourage so much? Dr.saze (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a question you should be asking here. What matters is that you are making edits to film articles that have been contested. Per WP:BRD, you should initiate a discussion, ideally at WT:FILM or a similar project page, where a consensus can be reached as to whether your edits are beneficial or not. This would in fact work to your advantage, as you'd have a much wider range of editors whom you could discuss this matter with and make your case to. It's possible Softlavender and/or myself and/or the other editors here are overlooking benefits to your edits that others would consider. DonIago (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so that is the problem. I have already written to many talk pages of edited articles and no one have not answered yet. So thank you very much. From now, if anyone would have problems with my edits I will write to WT:FILM or a similar project page immedietaly. Actually, you can write me some problem films directly and we can try our cooperation. I hope there will be no further problems. Dr.saze (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender above is saying what several other editors above have said: please stop adding the AFI nominations to articles - and when they are removed for the reasons cited above, do not add them back. There is a resounding consensus against them here.Sensei48 (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr.saze, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

DonIago (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks 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. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration

Owing to SUCH AS DUMB editors as Softlavender, SchroCat, Doniago, TopTen bla bla and others I am mistakenly blocked. Because of their arrogance, ignorance, derogation and other evil properties I am telling you I will announce publicly Wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia. It is full of cynics who haze new naive editors and do them so many annoyances they explode then. So they are blocked by even more frivolous administrators who are lazy to verificate the facts. Nice experience with a despotism! Thanks! - Dr.saze (talk) 16:10, 1 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm telling you the truth. I am innocent. I have a brother. He is a Wikipedia editor, too! We have lots of evidences. It's upon you to decide. Will you believe an outsider like me or the mass of vengeful editors with their noses above? Dr.saze (talk) 16:22, 01 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't understand. Your defense that you have a brother is accepted, and that's why the block is only 2 weeks. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 1 September 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.

WP:NPA and WP:SHOUT would seem to apply. But thanks for all the fish, and good luck with the unblocking. DonIago (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dr.saze. 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]

WikiProject Investment

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dr.saze. 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]

February 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Him & I. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ss112 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if you were watching Billboard's broadcast of the Hot 100 top 10. We don't update Wikipedia until Billboard's website claims the same thing, or we have reliable sources stating the new peaks. Do not update the peaks of songs announced on there until we have a text source, or you will be reverted for adding unsourced material. Thank you. 02:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Guess, you want to be a pain in my a** for eternity! For two years I have been stayed off editing and now when I renew like three numbers, you want to block me and do nothing than still warning on and on, over and over. It is a bit annoying, so I beg you - do something useful and stop barking around . Thanks forwards! 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Did I say I want to block you? What are you talking about? It is one of the fundamentals of editing Wikipedia—don't add unsourced material. Which you did. I think you should do something useful and source your edits next time. Thanks forwards! Ss112 05:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ss112, are you serious. Be so kind and read your first message you have written to my talk page. It is obvious you want to block me. So go on. I am not anxious of you, you are nothing I cannnot deal with. I did something useful and it was just few minutes or hours before official release and I had confirmed material, I DID NOT FABRICATE ANY OF THOSE NEW PEAKS!!! Dr.saze 15:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if the information is confirmed elsewhere or not—other readers need to be able to verify the material you add, and at the time you added it, the source did not reflect this addition. There is no arguing this. In future, don't update peaks before the source you are using shows the new peak. Also, you do realise that the only users who have the power to block on Wikipedia are administrators, right? I sent you a warning. I'm not an admin and I can't block you. If you continue(d) adding unsourced information, I would report you. You stopped. I sent a warning to let you know not to do it again. That's all. Ss112 17:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 Billboard Music Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maluma (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) 09:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DPL bot, thank you very much for your polite notification. I will try not to do these mistakes anymore. I am glad to help you with these edits. Dr.Saze (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Billboard Music Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Music Award

First of all, I was working. I don't really see what your point is. All the presenters are listed on the pages, besides, I got messages saying that you've already undone my edits. So, I'm not sure what you want me to do. ~~

Johnnyboytoy, I want you either to undo all your edits, or to complete all the mentioned presenters. Because now when I and other editors are looking at your edited pages and seeing that some categories contain "Presented by..." and some not, it really does seem like a shoddy and not-Wikipedia-worthy work. I wanted at first reedit your edits, but then I've realized it is your job to do, so please do it. Dr.saze (Dr.saze) 11:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2012 Billboard Music Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miguel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Associated acts

Please take a look at the guideline for associated acts in infoboxes: Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts. The guideline sets a high bar for inclusion. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Billboard Music Awards

The list was complete and it was not unecessary. Also, how caould it be incomplete if it is unecessary??? Johnnyboytoy (talk)

Johnnyboytoy! First, what about of a proper using of date. Second, your list was incomplete because there was just few mentioned presenters under few categories. If it interested me I would mention presenter/internet announcement in every single category. But that is really unimportant. E.g. look out for Oscars, Golden Globes, Grammys etc. and so on - any of these award does not need that. So do PLEASE something more useful. Dr.saze (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2005 Billboard Music Awards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boulevard of Broken Dreams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on Talk:2015 Billboard Music Awards

Hello, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by adding the {{edit semi-protected}} tag to Talk:2015 Billboard Music Awards. The article is not currently protected and you appear to have full editing privileges from what I can tell. If you want the article semi-protected you need to place your request at WP:RFPP. I suspect such a request will be declined because the only recent activity that might be considered IP vandalism is from one IP, which can be dealt with by blocking. Hope that helps. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:BebeRexhaggs.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:BebeRexhaggs.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 16:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:BebeRexha.png

Thanks for uploading File:BebeRexha.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 09:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr.saze. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr.saze. 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]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]