Lizzydarcy2008

Your recent editing history at The_King:_Eternal_Monarch 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weyyt (talk • contribs) 04:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The King: Eternal Monarch

@Lizzydarcy2008: You previously communicated with me in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:I_dream_of_horses#A_message_from_Lizzydarcy2008

Here is my point of view:

1. Disagree flixpatrol.com is not a reliable source. As the website stated in the disclaimer , ranking points are not associated with the streaming platforms and they do not represent the actual numbers of viewings or sales. This is an unreliable source as it is original research and a secondary source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

2. Disagree No reason on removing controversy section. Again, based on an unreliable source. Also, the ranking in the website will change over time and your reference will become obsolete in a couple of weeks. Hence I don't see a reason for putting it as a reference. If you would like to include Netflix rating you should quote from a reliable news article.Weyyt (talk)

Lizzydarcy2008, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Lizzydarcy2008! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Unflattering, Sourced Material

Hi, Lizzydarcy2008. I've reverted your edits that removed unflattering, but sourced material from the Monster.com article. If you are affiliated with, compensated or employed by Monster.com, please review the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and the section on Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The King: Eternal Monarch, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I'm CherryPie94. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to The King: Eternal Monarch seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: please try to heed your own advice. You are not making the article neutral. You are emphasizing its negative aspects and downplaying, even removing, positive ones. I have been trying to make the page neutral by removing duplicate negative information you have been smearing the page with and adding positive information you keep removing. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

That is why were are having the RFCs. People would vote which is neutral or not. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "The King: Eternal Monarch".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Lizzydarcy2008, 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. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability Yes, sorry about that. As I replied to the notice to my IP address, I forgot to log in before commenting on the page. But that happened only once. Unfortunately, a sockpuppet investigation made an association between my IP address and my login name. This is a serious security violation. May I request that this association be removed from all history records in Wikipedia? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Lizzydarcy2008, at this point that probably will not be removed (but I've privately messaged a couple of other people who work sockpuppet investigations for a second opinion). The problem here isn't so much that you edited while logged out, it's that you then proceeded to confirm the connection between the IP and your account (and then publicly asked for it to be removed, which is the kind of thing that triggers the Streisand effect). In the future, if you find that you have edited while logged out, you should privately contact the oversight team, as they are the people who can appropriately hide your IP address. You also should not confirm the connection between your account and an IP address, since that is considered to be voluntary disclosure of your IP. For what it's worth, one's IP isn't all that sensitive (the best it can give someone is your general location), and since your IP appears to be dynamic over a wide range it will probably change soon. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As promised, I asked. The recommendation was to email the oversight team and ask them - they might say no, but it doesn't hurt to ask. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, that's ok. I was able to get my ISP to change my IP address. Thanks! Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Links to the two RFC

RFC on Second Paragraph of Lede and RFC on Reception section. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.

Enough is enough. You have drained the community's patience with your disregard to consensus, your perpetual tendentious editing, pestering of a debate that simply did not go your way, your inability to understand that you do not own articles, and your refusal to get the point. ƏXPLICIT 10:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

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).

Lizzydarcy2008 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My apologies if I seemed disruptive and tendentious. My last action was to revert an edit made while the relevant section was still under a dispute resolution discussion. Please see the page edit history; the POV notice was removed after my edit. Edits to relevant sections of the page in the middle of the dispute, in violation of DRN Rule A and DRN Rule B, happened several times before, e.g. Diff1, Diff2, Diff3, causing the dispute to be extended since some arguments became meaningless and RFC's had to be created then restarted after the rogue edits. I should have raised complaints about these edits but did not want to go into more discussions and thought reverting the edits was sufficient action. I was wrong - first I was dragged into an edit warring discussion and now, blocked.
Regarding "pestering a debate that did not go my way", a discussion about the topic was still actively ongoing in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, there was no notice about the RFC being closed and the POV notice on the page was still up, so when another edit was made while the dispute was ongoing, I tried to revert the rogue edit, specifically a new feature ("mixed reviews" and its accompanying reference) that was not mentioned in earlier discussions. Regarding "owning the article", while some editors do seem like they own the article, I was definitely not one of them as I, in fact, felt powerless to write anything about this article since it seemed everything I wrote was reverted. Regarding "refusal to get the point", here's a sample of a sentence in the lede section I don't get; GMA News Online termed it a "hit Netflix drama" due to its popularity overseas. I don't understand why the phrase "hit Netflix drama" is in quotes, undermining the credibility of the statement. If Wikipedia does not fully agree with this statement, as the quotes imply, why put it there in the first place? I had suggested another well-sourced statement to replace this but it seems everything I said fell on deaf ears.
From the get go, I was labeled a "biased fan", not just in discussions but also in edits, smearing me and my comments. I never denied I am a fan of kdramas. Instead of being biased, being a kdrama fan gave me perspective that other disinterested editors might not have. This is the only kdrama page on Wikipedia that got my attention because it is more negative than warranted; it is the most negative kdrama page on Wikipedia. But having been labeled a "biased fan" meant discussions became an uphill battle since nobody seemed interested in understanding my point of view. Anybody who would try to understand my comments would see they were logically sound and relevant. All I wanted was to make sure Wikipedia was not made a tool of a smear campaign.

The page of The King: Eternal Monarch is an example of the importance of analysis and up-to-date information, not just on the existence of "reliable" sources, when including materials. It will be noted that even New York Times, one of the most reliable sources of information in the world, was wrong about the Iraq war. If Wikipedia just parrots everything it sees online, it is no better than a mere news aggregator and would not even need human editors as there are automated algorithms that easily do this type of work. And since smear campaigns involve the generation of large amounts of false information, Wikipedia would tend to become their tool. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on your commentary here, I agree with the assessment for Explicit in the block statement that you still don't get the point. Too much of your unblock statement is a justification of your own actions that led to your block or focus on what Wikipedia is doing wrong. only (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

@Only: I was just about to add that I had learned my lesson. Being disruptive is not useful to Wikipedia. I will avoid engaging in such behavior in the future. Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)