User talk:Bill Bobby Joe

Welcome!

Hello, Bill Bobby Joe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Longhair\^talk 01:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bobby Joe, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bill Bobby Joe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Quando Rondo (November 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bkissin was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Quando Rondo instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Quando Rondo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Quando Rondo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bkissin (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oyster River High School

What is your source for this edit? Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before continuing to edit. Tiderolls 16:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to The Notorious B.I.G., have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!

I'll supplement the templated messages posted above by saying this. While I don't always write edit summaries when I add content to articles or change MY OWN writing (although it never hurts to do so), using edit summaries is absolutely necessary if you ever alter or remove existing content, because that is somebody else's work. This allows other editors to know what you're doing and your reason for doing it. If you are unable to summarize a reason for changing something, it's probably best not to make the edit. Personal preference alone is not sufficient justification for replacing something in an article. Please keep these things in mind. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snoop Dogg

Please open a discussion on the article's talk page and see if the other page watchers agree with your changes. Thank you, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 (2)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Daniel Shays, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome

Hi Bill Bobby Joe. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Kodak Black, you may be blocked from editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Bill Bobby Joe. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for biographical information in Quando Rondo. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quando Rondo

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Quando Rondo . Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kid Buu (rapper)

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 Kid Buu (rapper) 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 band or musician that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. A loose necktie (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kid Buu (rapper)

The article Kid Buu (rapper) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Rapper with questionable notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on No Vaseline. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kid Buu (rapper) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kid Buu (rapper) 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/Kid Buu (rapper) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article. Wgolf (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kid Buu (rapper). Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Hi Bill Bobby Joe -- are you aware of our copyright policy? This edit that you made last year is a blatant cut and paste copyvio from the book you reference. For example, "Palestrina was very busy. In the mornings he minded the fur store and unplugged his tenants' toilets; in the afternoons he composed motets and masses" is what you added to the article: the book has "Palestrina was very busy. In the mornings he minded the fur store and unplugged his tenants' toilets; in the afternoons he composed motets and masses." Do you see the similarities? Do you understand the concept of paraphrasing? You cannot ever just copy and paste from a copyright source.

Yes, I know you are a sockpuppet of an account we have banned before. I should have blocked you earlier, but I'd noticed you were making useful edits and politely looked the other way. But this is a copyright violation and you cannot do this.

I'm blocking this account. If you want to be unblocked, ask for an unblock on your initial account (I believe that is Smart Aleck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), right?). I realize you will probably just ignore this, wait a little while, make another account and hope we forget, but please don't. It's a lot of trouble cleaning up after serial copyright violators. Antandrus (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked this account as a sockpuppet of User:Smart Aleck. If you wish to be unblocked, please make your case there. You may not have multiple accounts on Wikipedia. And you've clearly carried on in the manner that got you blocked in the first place (copyright violations). Antandrus (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

Hello, Antandrus. First of all, I, Bill Bobby Joe, must confess that I did create multiple accounts. I am terribly, horribly sorry for my wrongdoing. I really was not thinking carefully about my actions. But I came here to talk because I actually couldn't edit on Smart Aleck, not even on my talk page because I was also blocked there. I was originally going to make an unblock request there. But if I couldn't, is there any way I could do it here?

Bill Bobby Joe (talk) 18 March 2019

Yes, you can -- use the unblock template (there should be a description of how to do it in your block message) -- I'd like another admin to have a look at this. You've made several accounts, you've been warned multiple times, been blocked, come back again, been blocked again, come back again, etc. The template is {{unblock}}.

I tend to be a forgiving type but if and only if the person understands and acknowledges what they have done, and their continuing presence is a net positive for the project. Our goal, after all, is to improve an encyclopedia, not to play a social media game. Pinging User:Bbb23, User:Diannaa, User:NeilN, User:Dr.K., who are involved on your sockpuppet investigation case page. We could start an item on one of the noticeboards, or not. But Bill Bobby Joe, please make a formal unblock request first. Antandrus (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sympathetic at all to the user's belated apology. This account started editing on October 6, 2018, and has since made 387 edits. Their apology comes only after they've been caught. I have reblocked the user so it is now a CheckUser block and have adjusted the tag on their userpage.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping Antandrus. I tend to agree with Bbb23. The disruption and the copyvios continue with this account as with all the other socks. The apology doesn't look sincere. Overall, these are fairly disruptive longterm socks and I oppose their unblock. Dr. K. 21:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Bill Bobby Joe (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I must deeply apologize to you all for abusing multiple accounts on Wikipedia, which I now seriously understand is against the rules of Wikipedia. Antandrus, I thank you for your magnanimity and patience. Bbb23 and Dr.K., you both have a right to be unforgiving. I do not think I have emphasized myself enough. I honestly, sincerely, truly have realized my misconduct. I am totally OK if you won't forgive me. Now, let me state my reasons for the unblock. I actually enjoy editing Wikipedia in the first place, and it has become one of my hobbies. I truthfully mean it when I say this: I never meant to do more harm than good when I edit. I've never mentioned or talked about this before, but I never read the rules and policies for editing Wikipedia carefully in the beginning. I imprudently went straight to editing, because I just couldn't wait to have fun. Anyway, there are still some times when my edits have been helpful. Antandrus, you also mentioned that you noticed me making useful edits. I appreciate your comment. Some of my edits have been thanked by other editors, such as Thomas Jefferson. In the edit on Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, I actually thought it was a good idea to include some info about the composer's personal life. I must've lost my marbles and completely forgot about the copyright violation and some paraphrasing. Editing Wikipedia has always been something I enjoy. Sometimes I am rash in my actions and don't realize how big of a mistake I make. I am ready for y'all to decide on whether I should be unblocked or not. I look forward to your reply. Thank you.Bill Bobby Joe (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This has sat here for over a month and no administrator - myself included - has felt willing to accept it as an unblock appeal. At this point, I would recommend that you consider the Standard offer as being your only route back to editing. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.