Rogelioorrelana

October 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Eminem discography  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Nate Ruess. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Obie Trice may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox musical artist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Busta Rhymes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox musical artist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nate Ruess. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Big L. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Tech N9ne. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Saying "NO ONE SHALL CHANGE THE ASSOCIATE ACTS(((( I AM A PROFESSIONAL HIP HOP EXPERT AND SHALLL VIEW THIS DAILY!!!!" is ipso facto acting like you are the "owner" of an article. JesseRafe (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rogelio, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I have to agree with JesseRafe's comment. This is a community project, and community preference supersedes your proclaimed expertise. We only care what reliably published sources with established reputations for fact-checking have to say about any given matter. Your assertion in this venue does not constitute a "reliably published source". Additionally, you do not own any article, so grandiose proclamations like "NO ONE SHALL CHANGE THE ASSOCIATE ACTS(((( I AM A PROFESSIONAL HIP HOP EXPERT AND SHALLL VIEW THIS DAILY!!!!" are are no value here. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia puts verifying ahead of truth

Wikipedia could do with more experts, especially on the hip hop articles. I hope you don't get fed up and stop contributing. I can see you're frustrated that your expertise isn't sticking very well, that you get reverted sometimes, and get feedback on your editing that tastes as good as medicine.

A lot of experts working to improve Wikipedia miss the part about verifying. Any reader should be able to follow a path to verify a statement. Wikipedia likes formally cited sources, but edit summaries go a long way, too, and I see you've used them on some edits.

Imagine me as your perfect audience: my ignorance about hip hop is deep and wide, but I'm interested. I rarely talk with other people about hip hop, or seek out sources of information about it except for WP. I listen to hip hop about two hours a week, on a stream that doesn't announce artist names or song titles. I have about nine CDs that I could consult for myself to see if an edit were true or not.

I often have no clue as to whether an edit is bogus or not. Wikipedia gets vandalized by people adding false information or changing things that were true. So I sometimes revert an edit that has no explanation. The good contributions can be redone with a source, or an explanation of where the change is coming from. Those edits usually last for a long time. And when you provide the details of a good source, others can use it to learn more, or to add knowledge to other articles. Again, I hope you stick around as an expert.

Willondon (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello! Rogelioorrelana, 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! Bhootrina (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources, please

I'm disappointed that you didn't pay attention to my advice about sources.[1] I'm beginning to wonder if you're really an expert, or just somebody who's very knowledgeable about rap and hip-hop. Someone very knowledgeable may know a lot of things, but a true expert knows how they know, where they got the knowledge from, and can give pointers to others, so they can learn for themselves. The way Wikipedia works, it is essential that you be able to give details as to where you got the information from. Continuing to add things without any backup is just not going to work. Willondon (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Big pun

I am an expert but my computer never lets me link where I can lead you the way where I got my knowledge. It won't let me. It doesn't work on my computer Rogelioorrelana (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Alas then, your expertise will not stick to Wikipedia, and will be blown away. The invitation to the Wikipedia Teahouse might help with that. Willondon (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eminem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Game. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. 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 seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Big Pun. You have been warned multiple times. These edits are not constructive. You have been argumentative and uncooperative. Just declaring yourself an expert does not make it so, nor does it give you the option of editing incomprehensible original research to Wikipedia. This is your final warning. JesseRafe (talk) 05:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. Last warning again after a few months. The nonsense you add at Scarface, Kurupt, Still Not a Player, etc, has no basis on Wikipedia. Just as the repeated entries of so-called "legacy" you insisted on adding to Big Pun ad nauseam. Most of it is not even in English. You have been warned time and again and you cannot claim ignorance or being unaware of the policies any longer. You will be blocked if you continue to disrupt Wikipedia. JesseRafe (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Big L, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple warnings have been issued to you over a period of 7 months now and your editing behavior has not improved. JesseRafe (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know what I am vandalizing. I'm editing things that are true and real facts but you keep annoying me I'm sorry I'm only eleven man.

Every single time someone has told you to stop these unconstructive edits there has been a link to EXACTLY which edits were being referred to. Given that you are so young that might explain why few of your edits contain coherent sentences, but it does little to establish your claim of being "a professional hip hop expert". Just be warned that these edits will not take hold on any of these pages and if you proceed with your chosen course of action, you will be blocked. JesseRafe (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I know it's just I am, you see when I went through my times I focused on hip hop and was taught by underground rappers and I read every arrived and basically everything I write is already on there, sir. It's everything!!!! I just put it in the a different way. If you don't believe me, listen to a few songs by these artists and you see that they mention the rapper.

The thing is, you can't even write in a way that makes sense. "when I went through my times" and "I read every arrived" are complete nonsense. I've heard all these songs... many more times than you. You have failed to read the links about the rules and standards we have here. This isn't a fan site. Start a blog if you just want to endlessly list other people without citations whom you believe were influenced by one person or another. Your edits have been, by and large, nonsense or useless platitudes. To say nothing of the fact that they consist of opinions, original research, and unsourced declarations. Read up on Wikipedia terms and policies and learn to contribute in a meaningful way. Otherwise your contributions will not be welcomed. JesseRafe (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you get my last message but you see those mistakes you say that are on their, are the songs lyrics. I copy and paste them and I don't think you've heard most of the songs. In the song "Mode", by Pryhme( Dj Premier and Royce Da 5'9) ft Logic, he mentions Big L in the first verse. Game also references him in the song "The Ghetto", which is featured in The Documentary 2.5. Kendrick also references him on one of his mix-tapes but I forgot what it was called. So you say you have heard most of the songs most of the time but you don't believe me. Plus i just copy and paste them which means someone else edited them cause I'm sure i don't leave a mistake.I list them with proof and everything but you still say its wrong :(!!!! Probably you listen to those songs, but i listen AND study them. I'm sorry but this is all true and if you don't like them then you should go complain to someone else. Thank for those warnings but i'm okay thank you.

May 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Big Pun. You've been warned enough times. I know you are eleven, but that is it. Wikipedia is not your playground to add whatever you want when you want to articles just because you feel like it. These exact edits have been removed before and you were told why. This is the end of that. Many editors have been patient with you, but that's it. You can no longer be considered to be acting in good faith or trying to improve the encyclopedia. The next time you make unhelpful edits such as these you will be blocked. JesseRafe (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not making it as a playground!!! I don't know where, I'm making the mistakes. I keep proving with links and other stuff!!! All taht is true!!!! I'm not making this up and no one has complained but you. I think your also amateur or in other hands we both are. I don't know where are my mistakes cause I'm sure it's correct. I've made many edits and most have been good. No one as complained but you and your big pun!! It's all true I don't know where are my mistakes!!! Thank you sir

That's clearly not true as your talk page and edit history are both full of warnings from many editors, all of which are easily traceable. And, there is no good faith belief that you don't know where you are making mistakes because every single time you are told to not make the edits you are choosing to make, that warning comes with a link to the exact edit and page. Yes, you have made many edits, and almost everyone of them was full of patent nonsense or relentless fanboy gushing (often mixed with patent nonsense). This is the last warning, please review the edits you have made by comparing them with the warnings you have received and amend your behavior. JesseRafe (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is true but I read them and I stopped. The recent warnings I've gotten are from you. That is all. If you would like to reread them, you may. I check them and all I see is your name and I stopped getting warnings but from you I haven't. Have a nice day:) cause I don't know where I make the mistakes.

Okay Jesse I read some stuff, I get the web is copyrighted stuff and whatever nonsense blah blah but I agree with you. I'm writing horrible now which I do apologize but what about the writing? If I say Big Pun has been referenced and stuff, wouldn't that be much better? Meaning if I don't put any links or even pictures. Cause if that's not the answer then I don't get you at all. Thank you

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rogelioorrelana. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at It's Funky Enough, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to It's Funky Enough. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Big Pun. You have been warned over a dozen times. Stop it. Hiding for a few months and then returning to make the exact same disruptive edits is a form of edit-warring and proving you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia but only to see your own idiotic ramblings published. You will be banned if you continue. JesseRafe (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rogelioorrelana. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)