User talk:HM211980/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, HM211980, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --StoneCold89 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Andre Ware. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2008 Texas Longhorn football team, 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. →Wordbuilder (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

This is your third warning. You continue to remove sourced information from articles without discussing the changes or even adding a reason for the removal in your edit summary. Your changes to 2008 Texas Longhorn football team have been reverted. If you continue to make changes like this, you might be blocked from editing. Please refrain from removing sourced content. If you feel for some reason it should be removed, please discuss your views on the article's talk page. Thanks very much. Johntex\^talk 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Houston Cougars football

One of the fundamental aspects of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. Please don't inject your bias into articles such as how you did on the Houston Cougars football article. Your change has been reverted. Please don't add this back. Brianreading (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Charley Casserly has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Charley Casserly has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Charley Casserly constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from pages without explanation, as you did with this edit to Charley Casserly. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. RainbowOfLight ^Talk 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Charley Casserly. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please stop deleting sourced material in this article. It isn't "biased," as you contend; everything in there is supported by the cited sources. Thank You, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

I haven't reverted your edit completely, but consider this another warning on editing from a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Charley Casserly was once again anything but neutral. --Onorem♠Dil 03:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly recommend taking this to the talk page. You and Carlosescobar are editing from opposite positions. Administrators are not arbiters of content: you must work it out with other editors. If the dispute is not resolved, the article may be protected from editing until a consensus is reached. Wikipedia is not the place to express anyone's personal opinion on Casserly's work, either directly or by selective quotation. Acroterion _(talk) 04:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

See Carlosescobar (talk · contribs)'s talk page for further advice, which applies equally to you. Acroterion _(talk) 04:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Charley Casserly. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ruslik (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Strake Jesuit College Preparatory‎‎. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Postoak (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In a recent edit to the page Natasha Richardson, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Natasha Richardson. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Natasha Richardson, you will be blocked from editing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Ray Davies.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles

You will be aware that these articles have had perhaps hundreds of contributors over the years, and a broad consensus of how they are described has been reached through long and painful negotiation. Accordingly it appears unhelpful for you to come along and add your personal interpretation without discussion, and I suggest you do discuss any further changes before making them. Accordingly, I've reverted your edits to enable you to do this. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to tell you again. "arguably the best" in relation to Doctor Robert is original research unless you provide a reliable source for this. Yours disruptive edits are becoming intolerable, and you've been editing here long enough to grasp the basics. If you won't grasp them, go you must. Source it or lose it. You're already on a final warning. --Rodhullandemu 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I have already warned you about changing material about The Beatles without discussion or seeking consensus, and I thought you'd understood that. Your own unsourced point of view is unlikely to prevail here. Accordingly I have blocked you indefinitely- this does not mean infinitely, it means until you accept that you are not the only editor here, and that you will participate in our normal procedures for making what are, by any standard, major changes here. Up to you. --Rodhullandemu 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|sorry, i don't know the procedures for discussion or developing consensus on wiki. i thought my edits were reasonable --HM211980 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)}}

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to David Carr has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair Deal (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fair Deal (talk • contribs) 03:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. GripTheHusk (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Orange Music Electronic Company has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. MC10 | Sign here! 02:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles, as you did to Charley Casserly, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --VS ^talk 03:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of The Beatles' instruments. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to The Beatles (album) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 22:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Revolver (album), 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. Radiopathy •talk• 22:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Abbey Road (album), you will be blocked from editing. Radiopathy •talk• 22:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to The Dark Side of the Moon. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop in to point out that statements like "editor on a power trip" could be construed as a personal attack from someone less laid back than me. You have no basis for that accusation and, indeed, it could be labelled at yourself. Constructive discussion is what makes this project special, that was all I was looking for. Stay frosty. (Quentin X (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Contributing to talk pages

Please be careful to position your contributions to talk pages. Placing your edits before my earlier contribution made it look as if I was agreeing with you. It is best to be chronological. The JPS^{talk to me} 08:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was responding to the post above. Not a big deal. :) --HM211980 (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, really, as the first sentence of my reply was "I agree with you". Misplacing you post altered the meaning of mine. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WGA notice

Hello, HM211980. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Beatles

Hi - I see you were having some trouble editing some Beatles articles (re: Harrison's gear). I think if you were to provide REF tags with the book's information and page #, there's a much greater chance it would stay. If it's still removed (and I would not be one to do that), you have more ground to stand on. Just trying to help... Luminifer (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but I don't really care whether it's included or not. I already know it. I can't help it if a few small-minded administrators on a wiki power trip want to rest upon their precious "rules" about referencing as opposed to including some valuable information for other readers. --HM211980 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's actually critically important that our articles are Verifiable and not original research. It can be as simple as putting the source of your information between the tags <ref> and </ref> WP:REFB. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I can sympathize... However, in cases like these, you have to realize that even though you know it's true, there's no way anyone else knows - and wikipedia is all about verifiability... It helps everyone if you can supply the source for the information - that way, if someone else comes along, and they're sure it went another way, they can check your source and go from there... If you want to give up on wikipedia too, that's fine with me, but really wikipedia needs a lot more good editors and a lot less power trip reverters... see here:[1] to know that a discussion is currently under way about exactly the problem you are discussing. Luminifer (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant amount of unverified text contained in Wikipedia. If everything had to be verified, then Wikipedia would be a fraction of its current size. There are some administrators who believe that they personally own certain articles, and they immediately revert any added text to their own version, threaten to block you, and are generally unconstructive. One of the greatest offenders is User:Parrot of Doom who claims to own Dark Side of the Moon because he "wrote most of it". Who needs it? --HM211980 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you join the discussion here[2]? Try and not sound so angry, and people will listen more (I'm not saying this because I disagree - I want us to make our case as well as possible)... Luminifer (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hello, could you please simplify your signature? As per WP:SIG, no signature should contain line breaks, as yours does. --King Öomie 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mine doesn't contain a "line break". By the way, how did you put those weird dots over the "o" in your sig.? --HM211980 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Your... signature is three signatures in a row, which easily takes up a line of space by itself, is what I mean. Perusing through your talkpage edits, it appears (on my monitor anyway) that it always drops down a line after the first 'HM211980', so I figured "line break".

That character is Unicode U+00D6, an O with Diaeresis. Play around a little with the Character Map in Windows :P --King Öomie 13:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SIG

As I believe I've mentioned here before, your habit of signing comments twice tends to break page flow and is a disruptive habit. Only four tildes are required to sign a comment with both name and timestamp. --King Öomie 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Faces (band), even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wether B (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? I am making constructive edits. --HM211980 (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 202.20.0.166 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Eagles. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Enigma^msg 05:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Wiki Administrator on a power trip. Such that if you define a change as an "edit war" or "vandalism" that makes it true. I did neither. In fact I made a constructive edit. --HM211980 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here, let me help you out. Let me check again: yep, you're guilty of it. Lying about it afterwards is not helping your cause. Enigma^msg 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You can check as many times as you'd care to, but you'd still never know the difference. I'm not lying about anything (that's a subjective assertion on your part), and please don't assume that I have any "cause". Alternatively, you certainly appear to be on a mission. Carry on. --HM211980 (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to New York Dolls, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Please do not change the genres of musical acts unless the genres you are adding are supported by the article's sources, per our verifiability policy. Many of the genres you are adding do not even exist, such as "west coast rock". Also, please remember to leave an edit summary or your edits are likely to be reverted. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything doesn't have to be "verifiable" or "sourced". Some of it is obvious. Just because it isn't in Wikipedia doesn't mean that it's non-existant. Sorry. --HM211980 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything in the encyclopedia needs to be verified through reliable sources. Verifiability is one of our core policies. Changing the genres to the ones you think are most appropriate, without verifying them against the article's sources, is original research. As you can imagine, nearly every editor has a different opinion on what genre his/her favorite acts belong in, and they generally think these should be "obvious" to everyone else. Users constantly swing through dozens of articles, changing the genres to suit their own opinions without regard for verifiability or sources, as you have done. This leads to nothing but edit wars and disputes, and the articles are never stable. Hence, genres listed in the infobox should reflect those discussed in the body of the article, all of which should be backed up with sources. Going article-to-article changing the genres without leaving any edit summaries is a sure-fire way to get reverted, warned, and possibly even blocked, especially when they appear to be genres that you are making up as you go along (ie. west coast rock...what is that even supposed to mean?). --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Then should I seek out articles in which genres are unsourced and revert them in order to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and improve the articles? Regarding your question on the definition of "west coast rock", it should be self explanatory; as in rock music generated from the west coast culture and its musicians. --HM211980 (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested in genres, the best way to improve the situation is to read the article, looking for areas which discuss the artist's sytle and/or genre. Check that this content is properly sourced, and if it isn't, then look up some sources and improve the article text. Then make sure the infobox reflects the referenced text of the article. That's what the infobox is supposed to do: summarize the basic details from the article's body. Oh, and make sure to fill out an edit summary explaining your changes. If there is a dispute, or you have trouble finding sources, start a discussion on the article's talk page so that other editors can discuss with you how to fix the article's problems. In general, try to avoid looking like a genre warrior by constantly changing/reverting the infobox. Instead, show that you're willing to do the legwork on checking/finding sources and improving the main body of the article, rather than just the infobox.

As for "west coast rock", though it seems self-explanatory I'm sure you can also see that it's a very vague and useless definition. "Rock music generated from the west coast culture and its musicians" could include such disparate artists as the Eagles (country rock), Guns N' Roses (hard rock), Nirvana (grunge), Black Flag (hardcore punk), Metallica (heavy metal), The Beach Boys (surf rock), Korn (nu metal), and Sublime (ska punk/dub reggae). Also it depends heavily on what your definition of "west coast culture" is. It's inherently vague and POV-based. In any case, it would have to be used and described by reliable sources in the field of music criticism/classification in order to be considered an actual genre, and it hasn't. It appears to be either a neologism or a term you just made up.

P.S. You don't have to sign each of your comments twice. Once will do. --IllaZilla (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• You can check as many times as you'd care to, but you'd still never know the difference. I'm not lying about anything (that's a subjective assertion on your part), and please don't assume that I have any "cause". Alternatively, you certainly appear to be on a mission. Carry on.

I will do so. Enigma^msg 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it follows that labels such as "Southern Rock" or "Memphis Blues" must be too regional and vague, if "West Coast Rock" doesn't fly. I will make sure those are properly sourced for each band. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The key difference is that Southern rock and Memphis blues are terms that have actually been used by music theorists, historians, and critics, so it follows that they are verifiably genres. "West coast rock" does not appear to have such use, so it would be a neologism. For what it's worth, "Memphis blues" is hardly vague at all: it clearly describes blues acts from Memphis, Tennessee. "Southern rock" is vaguer but has the benefit of actually having been used by scholars of music to describe a more specific style than just "rock acts from southern states". --IllaZilla (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Scholars". Please. A bit of a high bar for Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will do so.

What a lame excuse for being blocked. Further proof of the existence of a Napoleon complex among some Wiki administrators. No surprise, I knew you were on a mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand again. I did not say Wikipedia was scholarly, I was referring to the sources in those articles. Look at the sources in Memphis blues and Southern rock and see for yourself: J. Broven, Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Joe Nick Patoski, Mark Kemp, et al. All of them professional writers, critics, historians, etc. specializing in the field of music, all of whom have written of these genres. Of course, Wikipedia's goal is to be scholarly, and to seek information from scholarly sources. Of course, being entirely built by volunteers, we can only reflect what our editors have chosen to contribute. And yes, the bar is high, but we expect that it will take time and effort for articles to reach it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Further proof of the existence of a Napoleon complex among some Wiki administrators.

No personal attacks, please. Accusations like this are only going to get you blocked again, especially considering your past history of warnings and blocks. Please calm down. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked three times already for edit warring, and your first edits after the previous block expired were to continue what you had been doing. And then, of course, you continue to launch baseless personal attacks against me. Will you or will you not stop edit-warring? Enigma^msg 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at New York Dolls. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs) 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Note: Enigmaman applied the block at 19:16, 22 October 2009. 2 weeks from then is 5 November 2009. I requested that he come back and place this notice, as it had not been done at the time the block was applied. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "edit-warring". I'm making an edit, then someone else reverts it immediately without cause. Ask them. --HM211980 (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[3] That's what edit-warring is. Enigma^msg 00:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are edit-warring. Have you nothing better to do? I haven't edited an article since the block expired and you're still stalking my page. --HM211980 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As soon as you stop claiming you weren't edit-warring, I'll stop replying. You were edit-warring, and that's why you were blocked. You never answered my question, by the way. Enigma^msg 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Enigmaman: My comments are ceratinly not baseless. You sure fabricate a lot of text. --HM211980 (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

IllaZilla: Actually, I understand perfectly; and no, the bar isn't high for these articles. In actuality it is quite low and very poorly monitored. --HM211980 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They certainly are. Enigma^msg 03:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current state of the articles may be poor, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and the standards we set for determining what represents our finest work are in fact quite high. An article being poor is not an excuse for adding unsourced original research to it; this merely adds to the article's faults. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion, but I think it might be best if both parties just chill. HM211980 has been around for 15 months and is just coming off his fourth block. Obviously he knows why he's been blocked, and knows what edit-warring is. Either he's going to stop it or he's not. If he chooses the former option, then we're done here. If he chooses the latter, then the next formal step is obviously necessary. At this point, continuing to berate him is only going to provoke more undesirable behavior. HM211980, the ball is in your court. Please heed the advice that has been given to you and remember to resolve content disputes with discussion rather than reverting. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't editing anything recently so why are you hassling me? --HM211980 (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hassling you. I'm asking Enigmaman to drop the issue. Obviously you haven't edited anything recently...your block just expired 2 days ago. And please, stop signing your posts twice. Just type ~~~~ once and be done with it. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, but I'm still not editing anything, and I have no intention to do so. I just find it odd that this Enigma (what an arrogant, pompous moniker) keeps coming to my talk page when I'm inactive. Talk about needing to find something more productive to do. --HM211980 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• They certainly are.

Umm, no, they're not. :) --HM211980 (talk) 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

←As the admin who blocked you, it's appropriate for him to respond to your comments related to the block. At this point, however, nothing constructive is being accomplished by the conversation so I've suggested you both simply stop responding to each other. You're welcome to continue editing as long as you choose to do so constructively and not repeat the same behavior that led to your previous blocks. I'm sure Enigmaman would agree. If you're choosing not to edit anymore, then there's no reason to concern yourself with his comments and you might as well just abandon this talk page altogether, as Wikipedia isn't a forum. In any case his comments, though terse, are not inappropriate and you should refrain from insulting other editors. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And he should refrain from insulting me. Some of his comments are actually quite innapropriate. It's just that such behavior seems to be tolerated by admins. --HM211980 (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not a single one of his comments contains an insult. Your comments, on the other hand, accuse him of having a Napoleon complex and call him arrogant and pompous. I'm trying to help nudge you in the right direction, but your attitude isn't helping. Please just drop the issue and focus on making positive contributions. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion maybe. To me there are insults, and he is arrogant and bullying in his responses. --HM211980 (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Enough of the insults and attacks. If you don't plan on contributing, and would rather hang around here insulting me, your block can be made indefinite. As a side note, you should really look up the definition of enigma. It is not a pompous or arrogant moniker. Enigma^msg 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the definition of enigma. See, that's another example of an insulting comment. I haven't posted anything recently except on my talk page, and only in response to being provoked, bullied or falsely accused of certain actions. I don't seek you out on your talk page, as you guys are doing with me. I would like to contribute, but am apprehensive about doing so because I expect that I'll be accused of edit-warring or some such violation. --HM211980 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not plan to edit other articles for the forseeable future. I am also finished the back-and-forth on this talk page for the forseeable future. I am sorry that simply wanting to add a few details to some music articles has resulted in such controversy. I thought that was the purpose of Wikipedia. --HM211980 (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. As I said, you're welcome to edit articles provided that you try to avoid the behaviors that have led to your being blocked in the past. If you make an edit, and someone reverts it, don't turn it into an edit war by restoring your preferred version. Instead, start a discussion on the article's talk page; This is how we form consensus on how to solve content disputes. Be wary of the 3 revert rule and try to work within our core policies. By following these simple tips I'm sure you'll find editing here much more rewarding. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I had to make an exception. I reverted a comment to the article discussing Dallas Cowboys linebacker Bobby Carpenter that was obvious vandalism; claiming that he was married to Dallas Cowboys QB Tony Romo. Although I don't have a source on this, it is public knowledge that it isn't true, so I thought that it was unfair to allow that to remain. I hope that User:Enigmaman doesn't claim that I violated some Wikipedia policy by not having a source --HM211980 (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent edit. Per our policy on biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly-sourced material (especially of a controversial nature) should be removed on sight. Good work catching this one. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Another edit. I reverted obvious vandalism on the page Tracy McGrady as some one recently changed the caption of a picture to note that Tracy McGrady was being guarded by LeBron James. The picture is obviously not of LeBron James because he has never played for the Washington Wizards so I thought it should be reverted. I hope that User:Enigmaman doesn't claim that I violated another Wikipedia policy, because I can't source this picture as not being James, but it is obviously not the case. --HM211980 (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

←Comment Enough taking shots at me. You know full well why it was blocked. If you'd like, you can ask other administrators whether the block was appropriate. I'm sure they'll agree. Enigma^msg 17:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Consider this to be your final warning regarding edit-warring and personal attacks. And yes, it's still edit-warring if you think you're right, and they're still personal attacks even if you don't like the person you're attacking. Wikipedia has shown ample patience with you, and you simply haven't learned a thing from the previous warnings and blocks. Enigma^msg 17:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I am discussing my constructive edits on the Discussion pages, and these editors are not. And what about the insults toward me from know-it-all User:Parrot of Doom? Why don't the policies apply to everyone? You just insist on singling me out. Why? I have made an effort to discuss changes on the Discussion pages just as you asked. Are you asking me to stop editing completely? --HM211980 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You are the one with the lengthy history of personal attacks and edit-warring. You are also edit-warring with several editors, not just Mr. Parrot. Enigma^msg 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring any more. I have taken my questions to the Discussion page, just as you asked. What else do I have to do in order to make edits or contributions? And please quit ignoring the offenses by others. It's obvious that that this is an assault on me. --HM211980 (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you stopped, then. Just be warned not to continue. The offenses by others? You are the primary offender here, even ignoring your history. Enigma^msg 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not the primary offender. It has worked both ways, including you attacking me. Despite asking the question several different ways, you still won't answer it. I'll just suppose that either 1) you don't understand, 2) don't want to help, or most probably 3) are just looking for an excuse to block me again. If prior experience with other ""administrators" is any guide, you really don't need one. No problem. Thanks anyway. --HM211980 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's simply not true. You continue to blame everyone else and refuse to accept responsibility for your own actions. You are the primary offender, because you are edit-warring against several editors and calling their edits vandalism, which is clearly not true. You repeatedly attack me, and then act as if it's my fault you're edit warring and name calling. Enigma^msg 02:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Dark Side of the Moon

I see the previous blocks taught you nothing. Please stop edit warring. If you have a problem with any content in the article, then take it to the discussion page - do not keep reverting edits that you simply do not like. If you continue this behaviour then I can see you being blocked again. Parrot of Doom 00:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's all you do is revert edits that you don't like without taking it to the discussion page. You are the one edit warring, reverting legitimate edits and breaking the 3-revert rule more than anyone. The Dark Side of the Moon isn't your own personal article; though you act as if it is. I'll continue to contribute material to the article just as anyone else. --HM211980 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I see a clear edit war developing here, with the 3 revert rule looming close. I urge both parties to take the subject to the article's talk page, per WP:BRD, before any warnings, blocks, or page protections become necessary. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I've been trying to do, only this user seems not to be interested in any discussion on the matter. If ownership of an article can translate to "not allowing people to make a mess of an article with their bollcks edits" then I'm quite happy to own it. Now he's carping on about unsourced material, where no sources are required. Yet this is the editor who in july of this year attempted to insert his own completely unsourced material, and who then got pissy when it was removed. Parrot of Doom 10:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't what you are trying to do. If I add a contribution that doesn't have a source, you revert it and state that it requires a source. If I delete an obvious unreferenced and unsourced assertion that you happen to want to be included, you state that it "doesn't require a source". You police The Dark Side of the Moon daily as if it is your own personal article. You have already violated the 3-revert rule. You have no interest in discussing anything regarding this article. You simply revert, undo and delete anything that you don't like, and repeatedly pepper the article with flowery, unjustified text. That's not the intent of Wikipedia. I have just as much right as anyone to improve the content and accuracy of the article, as long as I obey the policies. --HM211980 (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no requirement to cite statements made in a lead section, as long as that lead correctly summarises the article body. Obviously this is something you weren't aware of. The statement you deleted wasn't given an explicit citation but anyone with half a brain could have looked at the critical and popular reaction and realised that such a statement wasn't at all contentious, and anyone with the other half of their brain could have found the sources themselves, as I did in less than an hour. As for your 'flowery language' argument, well I still haven't stopped laughing about that, especially as you replaced 'flowery language' with "meaningly influenced". Instead of deleting things you don't like, try making a constructive contribution. I'm not the one with two blocks and a litany of warnings on my talk page history. I suggest you go and have a cup of tea or something, you're clearly incapable of working collaboratively. Parrot of Doom 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Kindly stop the insults, and take it to the talk page. Unless you can cite a reference it will continue to be reverted. You appear to hold yourself out as someone who knows a lot about this recording. As time passes, it becomes painfully apparent that you don't. --HM211980 (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That you view them as insults is testament to your confidence in this matter. There is no requirement to cite statements in a lead. I've done what you asked for, cease your disruptive editing. Parrot of Doom 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have stooped to insults; though not surprising given where you are located. Nevertheless, be assured that I will continue to watch your edits, and will revert any further vandalism on your part. --HM211980 (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't give a flying fuck. Try working on an article, as I do, instead of bitching about things you're ignorant of. Parrot of Doom 19:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

What a joke. You don't work on articles. Stay off my talk page with your vulgarities low-life. --HM211980 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

In a recent edit to the page Melanie Lynskey‎, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

More edit-warring

This is not acceptable. After the previous warnings, I expect you not to edit-war at all. Enigma^msg 19:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit war. Your interpretation of my edits is wrong. --HM211980 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no interpretation to be made. Making an edit, being reverted, and then reverting the revert is edit-warring, plain and simple. You may edit, but not edit war. That means if someone undoes your edit, you can't revert them. You've had enough second chances. Enigma^msg 21:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing; we invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Top Gun, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop. Consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. BilCat (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Palisades Charter High School. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Manway (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to What's the Frequency, Kenneth?, you will be blocked from editing. Dudesleeper talk 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Such an assertion needs to be sourced. Either find a source for it or I will revert it soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Bzzzt. Incorrect. Such an assertion needs to be tagged with a citation request. A single isn't a human being, so your line of following WP:BLP is an erroneous one. - Dudesleeper talk 23:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do stop edit-warring. Make your edit, and if people disagree, don't revert, because you really have had enough warnings already, even if you've removed them from your talk. Enigma^msg 00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I will edit as I see fit, as long as it's within policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring is not within policy, especially as you've been warned against it countless times. Enigma^msg 07:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then quit doing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not some big joke. You're the one doing it, not me, and you know that. Enigma^msg 17:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You do it as well. I should know, because I've been the victim of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't lie. I have not and especially not with you. Also, you are the perpetrator here, not the victim. Enigma^msg 19:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"You have not, and especially not with me." Somewhat contradictory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

←Not what I said. I said I haven't. Enigma^msg 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you have. Don't lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No I have not. You're the one lying here. Enigma^msg 00:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Top Gun. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to McDonald's, you may be blocked from editing. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Top Gun. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be unable to differentiate between editing and vandalism. Rossovich was in the movie, and he is listed as starring in the movie on the Top Gun page. If you would like to experiment, please use the Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Top Gun, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. BilCat (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism. And you can cut out the threats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "threat". You will be reported for vandalism if you continue this pattern of disruptive editing, and an admim will decide if you should be blocked. - BilCat (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your "disruptive" equals my "editing". Take a hike. I'll edit as I see fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you provide a reliable souces that shows Rossovich had second billing in the movie, but I already know better - I've seen the movie. So please be WP:CIVIL, or you may earn yourself an even longer block. - BilCat (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

+1. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to What's the Frequency, Kenneth?, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --CliffC (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely for generally being a dick. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just proof that if one has a difference of opinion than an Administrator, or a complainer, you get blocked. That is why wiki articles aren't viewed as credible sources. Not a surprise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HM211980 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1