User talk:Seedennis
May 2013[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Matrix with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. »Petiatil († talk ‡ contribs) 04:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Metacritic with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. »Petiatil († talk ‡ contribs) 04:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to The Good Wife. Amaury (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Please also understand that there is nothing inappropriate about adding review sections on TV series articles. It is clearly relevant, and is also part of demonstrating the subject's notability. If you continue to remove such material without discussion, and without giving a valid reason, you are at risk of getting blocked. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 04:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Amaury (talk) 05:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC) I do not have multiple accounts. only one. seedennis. I don't know why you would think otherwise. The last few edits concerned posts that violated the advertising accounts that set themselves up as representing the publics statistical view of opinions concerning various tv shows. the source stated on there own page that they were a commercial enterprise and it appeared to me that the infomation given was strictly opinion and not validated and would not appear in a typical encyclopedia; thus I removed it. Now I supposed that was not the correct way to go about it. But I am kind of appalled that "no reason given" was wikipedia's answer. And I found it very difficult to find how to reply to the person in Lakeland who blocked me. It is not important to me anymore what wikipedia does as it will always be highly inaccurate as anyone can more or less put anything in it and just get a citation needed. Like I said I have only one account and do not know why you would call me some spammer when I have not done such a thing. even as I type this I do not know if it will be saved for anyone to read, as if thet were important as I will not ever edit wikipedia anymore even when I know it is wrong. Like the religious table for my state of Maryland where the data in the table does not match at all what is written above in the text, but that is your problem. wikipedia must always be taken with a grain of salt or maybe a whole salt shaker. EOT. Bye and good luck with your product. Below is what I thought prevents companies from using wikipedia as an ad agency. But that is your problem not mine. also note well that there is a lot of prescription drug information in your encyclopedia that is not monitored and may have serious consequences to those who rely on it for their health, even though I think wikipedia is against such use of its product, it is still responsible for it in some way, but that is not for me to decide as I am to stay blocked and seedennis will no longer be a part of your product in any way and you may remove anything I may have written in it. Do what you want, it is your product. I am no longer interested in it. So once again goodbye, fair well with following seas.... seedennis signing off, well at least if this "saves". no reply needed as I will not sign in or try to sign in again. seedennis. Below copied from wikipedia. Advertising-only accounts Shortcut:
WP:SPAMACCOUNT
Accounts that seem to exist only to promote somebody or something ("spamming") are normally indefinitely blocked, because Wikipedia may not be used for promotional purposes. Such promotion may include posting articles that read like advertisements or inserting inappropriate links to other websites.
As an advertising-only account, you will not be unblocked unless you indicate that you will stop your promotional activities. In addition, you must convince administrators that you intend to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia that are unrelated to the subject of your promotion if unblocked. To do so, your unblock request should include specific examples of productive edits that you would like to make.
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts[edit]
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/JTGILLICK, 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.
Amaury (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Seedennis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and/or the person that has taken control of this Wikipedia account. I am Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a Wikipedia editor and administrator.
It would appear that someone other than the person who created the "Seedennis" account has now taken control of this account.
- from July 2007 until March 2013 "Seedennis" made very constructive contributions to articles as diverse as Tyrrhenian Sea, Cook Islands, and The Way of All Flesh
- starting from May 2013 "Seedennis" deleted content without explanation on articles including Rookie Blue, The Matrix, and Metacritic.
This change of editing patterns seems inexplicable, and it appears the "Seedennis" account has been "compromised" (it is no longer operated by the person who started it). This is why that account has been blocked.