Realwords101
|
April 2010
editWelcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Rude boy has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAK7zvSZFqg&feature=related. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Rude boy do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS6bVTYRh-w. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dancehall. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Please gain consensus on the talk page before making these changes.--Michig (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Dancehall
editCan you provide any meaningful references for your changes to Dancehall? The one's you've added do not support the changes that you have made. You should also appreciate that this article is about 'dancehall reggae', not about 'dancehall events'. If you cannot provide sources to back up your changes, they will be reverted. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep insisting on changing the origin of Dancehall to be 'Count Machuki' along with adding a reference to a source that says nothing of the sort? Machuki was one of the first deejays but we have a separate article for deejays - this article isn't about deejays, and it isn't about the dances that deejays perform(ed) at - it's about dancehall reggae, the style of reggae that emerged in the mid-to-late 1970s. Please do not continue to add sources that do not support changes that you are making. --Michig (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
You clearly do not have consensus for the changes you are making, nor sources to back them up. If you continue with these edits you can expect to be blocked from editing.--Michig (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Michig (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Message added 13:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sockpuppetry
editI have blocked User:Wordsforyou indefinitely as your sockpuppet, and I am blocking you for a week for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. The sockpuppetry was so obvious I saw no need to involve WP:SPI. Fences&Windows 18:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fences&Windows 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Realwords101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I supplied reliable sources
Decline reason:
If you're factually correct and have sources to prove it, then it should be no problem to establish consensus on the talk page through polite conversation. However, this has nothing to do with your block, which is for edit-warring and sockpuppeting- neither of those will help you to establish consensus for your desired edits, but will actually tend to work against you. Your attempt to establish consensus through a legal threat is also not likely to be as helpful as simple discussion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (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.
I supplied reliable references on the subject and was for reasons I can not understand told that I was vandalizing. Dancehall page is VERY bias. An example of a reliable source.
[proformance and production by John Shepard]
Dancehall page is set to not tell the real story of Dancehall and how it really happened. I experienced this genre of music in my life and feel lying to the public is wrong and can end up in a law suit being filed.
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Realwords101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have discussed but my discussions were deleted to send messages that I was vandilizing
Decline reason:
Casting aspersions on whomever blocked you is not going to get you unblocked. –MuZemike 13:51, 30 April 2010 (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.
I am not saying that I would file a law suit but the editor clearly has a page that is somewhat bias and he is not very educated on the subject. He blocked me because I gave him reliable references. I feel he is very unfair. Deejayers are singers in Dancehall and reggae and he removed all my edits. Dancehall started in the 1950s not 1970s. I also refered him to recorded sources from the 60's that clearly showed Dancehall started in the 50's 60's not the 70's.
- I'm sorry that you don't understand the reason for your block, but you are not going to find anyone who is willing to unblock you if you can't demonstrate that you understand why you are blocked, and that you will behave differently in the future. I'll remind you: you are not blocked because of when you think dancehall started, and you are not blocked for sharing sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Realwords101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I only wanted to tell the truth. If you look at previous discussions you will see some were deleted. I need to be unblock that I can start another article. I no longer have interest on that page since it makes no sense to add references with reliable backing.
Decline reason:
A few things here:
- WP:TRUTH doesn't matter, it's WP:CONSENSUS that does
- WP:NLT is an on-sight indefinite block
- WP:SOCK is an on-sight, often indefinite block.
You have slightly alluded to 2 of the 3 - neither of which are the one you're actually blocked for. Read WP:GAB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:00, 30 April 2010 (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.
May 2010
edit Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dancehall. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
edit Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dancehall. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.--Michig (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Whip My Hair
editThis has nothing to do with "Whip My Hair". While it may be relevant to Rihanna's article, it is not needed in the "Whip My Hair" one. A sentence about Willow's inspiration from Rihanna is all that is required. Please do not add this information again without discussing it at Talk:Whip My Hair. Thank you. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Suger Rappin
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Suger Rappin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kante4 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Dancehall Queen Angel has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Slon02 (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Dancehall Queen Angel
edit If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Dancehall Queen Angel requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Nancy talk 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you--Realwords101 (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Dancehall Queen Latesha Brown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Not Notable. See Wikipedia:Notability#Self_promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Dancehall Queen Mo Mo for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dancehall Queen Mo Mo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancehall Queen Mo Mo until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hasteur (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Dancehall Queen Latesha Brown for deletion
edit A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dancehall Queen Latesha Brown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancehall Queen Latesha Brown until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Hasteur (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
edit
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Count Matchuki, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Michig (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)