User talk:NickLenz19

Welcome!

Hello, NickLenz19! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Bmg916^Speak 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You may also be interested in joining wikiproject professional wrestling. I hope you like it here, and decide to stay! Bmg916^Speak 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Jon Heidenreich. 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. —B o L 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boliding in wrestling articles

Please refrain from bolding current them music, ringnames, etc. etc. in professional wrestling articles. These are not supposed to be bolded per the Wikipedia Manual of Style at MOS:BOLD. I know that some wrestling articles have bolding, but WP:PW is slowly but surely correcting this error, and we would appreciate your help. Thanks. Nikki311 22:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Shawn Michaels, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove titles from a wrestlers page, like you did to Jon Heidenreich. Also, please understand that we list wrestling organizations in alphabetical order, and do not show favoritism by one you may consider more major. If you would like to get more involved with wrestling articles on wikipedia you may wish to consdier checking out Wikipedia Project Pro Wrestling. Less Than Clippers 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Sortable tables need to have entries linked everyime per WP:OVERLINK S_RX 18:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Championships and accomplishments

Hi there. I just wanted to let you know that championships/titles should not be added to an article about a tag team, unless the titles were won while they were actively teaming together. Say for example, your recent edits to the Hardy Boyz. The Hardys weren't teaming full-time when Matt won the ECW Championship or the WWE United States Championship, so it doesn't go in the Hardy Boyz article, because it isn't relevant to that article. His individual one, yes certainly, but not the team one. The same goes for Jeff's WWE Intercontinental Championship reigns. Apart from his first, the other three don't pertain to the article, because he didn't win them while they were teaming togther. Please bear this in mind in your future edits. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding first/last/shortest/longest/most/etc

Hi there. Just a quick note to let you know that it has now been decided by consensus at WP:PW to not add notes such as "most wins/reigns"/"longest"/"shortest"/etc to articles in the championships and accomplishments section, as you did here. The discussion can be found here. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Dusty Rhodes (wrestler), you will be blocked from editing. I have already explained to you why these have been removed from articles. Please stop adding such notes to the articles. It is now considered vandalism as you are deliberately ignoring consensus, a consensus of which you were informed. Please stop. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop or I'll report. RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been shown the discussion on removing these sorts of edits, so why do you continue to add them? At this point, since you have been warned multiple times, your editing is becoming disruptive—going against consensus without explanation. If you like, you could comment, and we can talk it out, but blatantly ignoring the help of others will get you blocked. Nikki♥311 19:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this your final warning regarding this and other edits which are against consensus. Please use the talk page of the articles to discuss. Enigma^msg 20:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography?

Hello, I think the word you're looking for (when describing a list of a character's appearances) is Bibliography, rather than Biography, which is something totally different. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. 71.194.32.252 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true - a Biography is a story written about a person, whereas a Bibliography is a list of sources. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quote, from the wikipedia artices on the subjects: "A bibliography ... is a systematic list of books and other works", and "A biography is a description or account of someone's life and the times, which is usually published in the form of a book or an essay". I'm not sure why you don't understand the difference. Is there any better way I can explain this to help you? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections

Please note that trivia sections (or "notes", as you've been calling them) are unnecessary and almost always a violation of WP:TRIVIA. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics Manual of Style

Hi, Nick. Thanks for your contributions to WikiProject Comics. Just a quick note that our MOS for the first volume of a comic-book series is not to use the phrase "vol. 1" when giving issue ranges. So, for examples, we'd say Agents of Atlas #1-6 (Oct. 2006 - March 2007) and Agents of Atlas vol. 2, #1-11 (April 2009 - Feb. 2010). Lowercase "v" in "vol." Thanks! -- Tenebrae (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note a repeated misspelling of "Essential". It is not "Esstional". I wouldn't have mentioned it, except it turns up a lot in your edits across different articles. I understand Wikipedia is global, and English might not be your first language. -- Tenebrae (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: The word "Bibliography" should not appear in italics. You have it that way in several subheads. Also, WikiProject Comics' Manual of Style is not to write "vol. 1" for the first volume of a series, but to start with "vol. 2". Thus, Fantastic Four, Fantastic Four vol. 2, Fantastic Four vol. 3, etc. Please note that the "v" in this case is not capitalized. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wiki Project Comics

A discussion concerning some editing issues involving you is taking place at the WikiProject Comics talk page. We invite you to join the discussion. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NickLenz19. I thought I'd ask again if you'd like to join the discussion above, since a number of editors feel that these are not helpful edits. While the discussion is ongoing, it would be a show of good faith to cease making these questionable edits and to discuss them with your fellow editors at the link above. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this needs to be your final warning to stop adding your lists without discussion. Your actions may be considered disruptive editing, which can lead your being blocked. I ask you one final time to join the discussion at the above link. In the meantime, I will revert your questionable edits made after the above date. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 48 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Per this discussion at WP:ANI, I have blocked this account for 48 hours. You are editing against the established consensus at the article page, and have ignored every attempt to discuss the issue and all requests to cease your actions. Should you open a discussion at this page to discuss your edits then, as long as there appears to be some progress, you may be unblocked without further reference to me. However, if you wait out the block and then recommence the same type of edits then I strongly suggest that you are blocked indefinitely - indefinite being for as long as you are not willing to act within WP's ethos and policies. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NickLenz19, you have been asked to discuss your questionable edits. You declined. You've been asked by a consensus of editors not to make these edits, and after continuing to make them, without discussion, you were blocked for two days. Immediately after your block ended you again began making what have become vandal edits. I'm afraid I must contact an admin about your actions. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 60 hours, for returning to exactly the same editing mode that got you blocked April 24. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

And to add a little bit of a finer point on this:

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. It is desirable for you to participate in discussions. Not ignore them.
The Comics Project has been discussion bibliographies. The current consensus is that their use should be very, very limited.
Please look over Edit Summaries. The use of them to is essential to allow other editors to know what you have done and why.
Shuffling entertainers in and out of articles, as you did with Dudley Boyz needs explanation if not sourcing.
Edits like this comes close to vandalism since the note was most likely left as a part of consensus.

Please consider all of this for when you return to editing in 2 and a half days. Continuing to edit as you have been will result in you being blocked again for a longer duration. Continued use of your current editing methods can result in your being blocked indefinitely.

- J Greb (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 72 hours, for the same reasons given in the prior blocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I would encourage you to cease adding these list sections to articles without further discussion. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2010 (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).

NickLenz19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

so that I can Fix somthing that some one scrwed up

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2010 (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.

You have again began reinserting the same edits, and engaging in no discussion, as of 02:04, 8 May 2010 (diff | hist) Donyell Taylor. At this point, you are clearly aware that what you are doing is disruptive editing. I am notifying an admin. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for inability to comprehend the basic consensus-building process and requirement to discuss following three previous blocks. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any reviewing admin shortening/lifting the block, if they are convinced that the user will actually contribute constructively. Tim Song (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to do so upon request. NickLenz, however, will have to agree to work with and discuss with his fellow editors on the collaborative process. If he proves unwilling to do so, and reverts to his previous ways, I will re-block him and remove myself from the situation entirely. BOZ (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]