User talk:Michael 182

Welcome!

Hello, Michael 182, 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! South Nashua (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bold in tables

Hi Michael 182, recently you have been replacing various actor/acrtress/director award table entries with boldface. I have removed the bold letters except from tables where it is used to contrast the top position from other entries. This issue has been brought up in WT:FILM. Please discuss there before reverting or changing more tables to boldface. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Awards lists

As requested in edit comments, please don't change featured lists in such bold ways without some form of prior consensus via the associated Talk pages. Your changes make it impossible to sort the entire list by name, or by any other column. The only improvements seem to be easier editing by decade (though that would be a rare need), and to remind readers when they've reached the end of a decade, which they can see by simply looking at the year column. Not sure either of those are good reasons, but you haven't even asked anyone before proceeding. Some readers may have been relying on the sort option across the entire table, and editors normally only need to add at the bottom each year. So, can you please expand on your reasoning, more than "It helps to better comprehend the text"? Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in film award lists

The issue of splitting film award lists in decades and disabling overall sortability has been brought up in WT:FILMS [1]. Please discuss there before continuing with similiar changes and reverts as you did in Golden Bear and Palme d'Or. Thank you.Hoverfish Talk 20:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability. Please participate in the linked discussion before making further large-scale changes to tables within film articles as you have made in Academy Award for Best Picture. AldezD (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for Best Picture

Please stop making changes to tables in the Academy Award for Best Picture article without participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#User splitting award lists by decades & disabling sortability. AldezD (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Academy Award for Best Picture.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. AldezD (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. AldezD (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 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 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've blocked your sock account indefinitely.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out edits

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for logging-out to create an illusion of support contrary to WP:SOCK. While editing as an IP is not disallowed, doing so to support yourself in content disputes is an abuse of community trust. Please ensure you are logging in to edit moving forward. 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Ponyo, please see here that Michael 182 continues to push for splitting by decade despite an RfC here finding no consensus from anyone else to do this. I am not finding that this editor is conducting themselves properly in persisting without consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I almost believed this editor had complied with consensus and was up to constructive edits, at least in the area of film awards I edit and watch. Hoverfish Talk 00:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been involved with this case as far as the socking was concerned. It may be time to bring the issue to ANI, unless Black Kite, who's blocked them previously for disruption, wants to take a look.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Michael 182. 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]