Stgw
Welcome!
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia, Stgw! Thank you for your contributions. I am Revolution1221 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Revolution1221 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Stgw, you are invited to the Teahouse
edit
|
Hi Stgw! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
April 2013
edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Craig Mabbitt was changed by Stgw (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.911145 on 2013-04-01T02:01:42+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Unblock
edit
Stgw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I didn't mean to edit war, but a user keeps vandalizing the genre field and adds unsourced genres that conflict with the WP:NPOV and I warned him enough but he never stopped and kept reading it. He needs to source genres first instead of genre vandalism and genre warring.
Decline reason:
Perhaps you didn't mean to edit war, but you did -- and content disputes are not vandalism. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:31, 2 April 2013 (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.
Stgw (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want the discussion without needing to keep posting this template, but I don't get it. He added genres without sources or consensus so I gave him instructions on edits and stuff and he did the same thing over 3 times and then I told him to stop and he still does it. Seriously, you actually think its okay to genre war? Why do I get blocked only and he can still edit? It means that he's allowed to genre war in my opinion. He needed to add sources for his genres but instead of seeing my instructions he simply just kept genre warring. Editing the genre field by adding completely incorrect genres without sources that have no consensus and are random is often called vandalism or at least genre warring. That's why those edits get reverted and are considered genre war edits. Edit wars always happen but why did he not get blocked and I did when he also edit warred?
Stgw (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline of unblock (by blocking admin) because the block has expired. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2013 (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.
Your opponent hadn't been warned about edit warring so it would have been inappropriate to block him/her for it. We don't block folks for policy violations unless we have reasonable assurance that they know about the policy. The user was then warned about the problem which s/he ignored and was subsequently blocked as well.
You had been warned about edit warring. explicitly acknowledged your understanding of the policy here and here . It's as simple as that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Stgw. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 01:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Repeating the error will be blocked
editYou've changed the genre of each album of Escape the Fate. Genres that should have been there from the beginning in the article should not be replaced. You will be blocked if you do the same again. User:Zuagery (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC + 7)
No you are genre warring, you are adding unsourced and incorrect genres without a source, then you add a source that mentions nothing of it being under that genre just to get away with genre warring. Use reliable sources and stop faking sources. Genres suiting your own view is disruptive.
Stgw (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion should be taking place on the band's article talk page, but since it's happening here we can continue it here. I don't want to side with either of you but discussion at this point is preferred from both of you rather than editing. It's obvious you do not see eye-to-eye on the genres so perhaps adding reliable sources as references would be the place to start. Not all sources are reliable. Amazon.com is definitely not a reliable source for genres. It might be for track lengths though. If you need me to to be an arbitrator, I'd be glad to.
- Also threats of "you will be blocked if you do the same again" are what we call a personal attack and should be avoided. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Rise against post-hardcore?
editHey i just wanted to say that Allmusic describes rise against as a post-hardcore band...how to add source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geragrrt (talk • contribs) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 14
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resilience (Drowning Pool album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 19:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 21
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited In Memory Of... (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Please keep all discussion related to our disagreement on the Immortal talk page. Do not start separate discussions on my talk page, because anything you have to say there can be said on the Immortal talk page. And again, do not simply keep reverting to your preferred version. Up until now, consensus has agreed to keep all three genres in the infobox. Consensus can change, but it requires discussion before being changed, and by more than 2 editors. Simply posting on the talk page and then reverting is not consensus, it is disruptive editing. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Immortal (band). 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- 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. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 21:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)