User talk:SwiftSafety

Edits to "Wreck-It Ralph" article

Please do not introduce images like that to Wikipedia. These are unneeded and it appears as if you have made the logo yourself. This may have violated copyright. Please do not add images like such to Wikipedia or your May be blocked from editing. Thank you. Thatkitten (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wreck-It Ralph. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Thatkitten (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm DD2K. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page The Washington Post, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello! SwiftSafety, thank you for your film-related contributions to Wikipedia so far. You are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Sarah Silverman, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting other editors

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sarah Silverman. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sarah Silverman. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. McGeddon (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sarah Silverman. McGeddon (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. You have been engaging in slow edit wars on Sarah Silverman and John C. Reilly. Considering that you have been edit warring on both these articles since December 2013, this is a very short block, because you have not been blocked before, but if you were to continue to edit war after the end of the block, you might well be blocked for very much longer. However, I hope that will not be necessary. If you disagree with other editors, please explain your reasons for disagreeing, and be prepared to discuss the issues, with a view to reaching agreement, rather than just repeating your own preferred edits over and over again. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wreck-It Ralph 2 Logo.png and File:Wreck-It Ralph 2 Title.png listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons

Files you uploaded or altered, Wreck-It Ralph 2 Logo.png and Wreck-It Ralph 2 Title.png, has been listed for speedy deletion on Wikimedia Commons. If you believe the files should not be deleted, you can contest the deletions at the file description pages here and here. You can read more at your Commons talk page. Thank you. Purplewowies (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sarah Silverman. McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism of various kinds, particularly deliberately placing wrong dates in articles, which you have been doing ever since you first created this account. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2014 (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/SwiftSafety, 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.

McGeddon (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2014 (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/SwiftSafety, 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.

McGeddon (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]