User talk:Noozgroop

Welcome!

Hello, Noozgroop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rklawton (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Popcorn worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Age Happens (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hopkin

Could you tell me where you sourced the U.S. chart positions from ? As per Wikipedia:Verifiability they do not come from the reference that is quoted. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Love and Rockets (band). 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. JD554 (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered vandalism. Further edits of this type may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Frédéric Chopin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. --Frania W. (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

Actually I don't have the charts. User:BravesFan2006 updates them. May I ask what article you're talking about that I added? EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines before making more style-related edits

Your edits to the United States article have been reverted. The existing style is perfectly proper, well-established, and applied consistently. There is no good reason to change it. Here are links to two pages it might help to study, along with a quote from each pertinent to the recent matter.

Manual of Style:

"The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."

Manual of Style (dates and numbers):

"As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)."

Regards, DocKino (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removal

born - Bronx, New York died - Phoenix, Arizona

I was wondering, why did you remove Arizona? Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous edit was a similar edit and was also reverted ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful

Hello. Please try to be less careless with your edits, and next time please check the facts first, before you decide to fix something seemingly wrong, like the company name in DivX, Inc. Not everything that looks wrong is wrong, especially when it has stood the test of time and edits by many people, remained unchallenged for years, and when Google or the Web archive can give the answer in a matter of seconds. Thank you.—J. M. (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Bleeding Love, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not make unneeded changes, the MOS states that both are correct and is unneeded to make those changes Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in U + Ur Hand. There is a Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 00:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in The Sweet Escape. There is a Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Snap Snap 13:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at The Sweet Escape, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Snap Snap 22:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Sweet Escape. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of tags

Please stop removing maintenance tags, particularly the "citation needed" tags from articles such as Christine McVie and When You Say. They're there for a reason, not to be removed wholesale without a single reference being added. Any further removals wil be considered vandalism. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Taormino

I've removed the date of birth and the source which you cited in the Tristan Taormino article. The site which you referenced, WorldLingo.com, is using an old copy of the Wikipedia article. The reference is WP:CIRCULAR. Please don't use them as a reference. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 04:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to The Hangover (film), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits

You may want to read WP:ORDINAL on when it's appropriate to change numbers from words to numerals. Most of your edits, though in good faith, are unnecessary and frequently counter to our style guidelines. I notice you've already been warned about this before, yet you are continuing making these same sorts of edits. Please be more diligent in your editing. -- œ ^™ 07:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Scott Peterson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Scott Peterson, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. pablo 13:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Amy Winehouse discography. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Rokstarr. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NUMBERS: "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four)." This does say that they can go on either way. If you insist in make lame wars, as explainded here (If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason), you may be blocked from editing.

October 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Taylor Swift (album), Mean (song), Sparks Fly (song), etc, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at all Taylor Swift articles you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Taylor Swift (album). Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Taylor Swift & Tim McGraw (song), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You were warned about this twice now. This is your third warning stop making unnecessary edits without discussing them in the talk page. If kept up you will end up blocked. JamesAlan1986 *^talk 08:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Hello. If you're changing some content in an article, please use the EDIT summary to show that. Thanks, Novice7 (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking YOU AGAIN, to use edit summaries while changing numbers. Novice7 (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO? Novice7 (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in article, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Stop changing spelled-out numbers to figures as per WP:NUMBERS. Snap Snap 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Back to Black. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Snap Snap 15:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Snap Snap 17:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Nicki Minaj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madonna (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) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Please take a look at what others have done before blindly reverting them. Ryōga Hibiki (talk • contribs) 06:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia. Your edit to Tik Tok was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Blah Blah Blah (song), even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 'Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers_as_figures_or_words; Don't just change formatting without gaining consensus. Your edits are in violation of WP:GA/WP:GA/WP:MOS policy.' - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard

Hi. Please do not add unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard. The sources cited for that passage make no mention of her exact day of birth, and mention only the month and year. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Hey Baby (No Doubt song), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I have blocked your account for 48 hours. This is because despite the concerns raised by other editors, and the advice you've repeatedly been given, you have made no attempt to communicate with your peers or adjust your editing to conform with site standards. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and as such we expect all editors to operate by a code of conduct. Key to this is a willingness to work collegiately—which means talking to, and learning from, each other.
Because all other methods seem to have failed, you've unfortunately left us no choice but to implement a block to get your attention. Although it is fairly short and will expire automatically, if you continue to edit as you have been when the block ends, it is likely that you will be reblocked for an indefinite duration without further notice. Your enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia is evident and we'd like you to continue contributing, but you must play by the rules. During your time off please take the time to read and understand the advice that's been provided to you in the many posts further up this page.
You can request to have this block reviewed by another administrator by following the instructions at {{unblock}}, but please be sure to read our guide to making unblock requests first. EyeSerene^talk 09:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Red light camera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phoenix (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) 14:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMBER

Look, we can do this all the months, you start saying "Keeping numbers consistent with rest of article", but later you decide that Wikipedia is not written in stone and you continue changing the style that suits your POV. The next time you change the MOS:NUM from spelled out numbers to numerical, as you did at Eenie Meenie, or any other page, and you will be reported to again to admins. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

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 could also click on the signature button or 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 they said it. Thank you. - David Biddulph (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeatedly changing the format of numbers from words to numbers in contravention to the WP:MOS, despite having had this clearly explained to you and having been blocked for it before. This type of edit warring is just a pointless waste of time for everyone involved. Wikipedia works through collaborative editing. When the community makes a pretty broad decision about how articles should be formatted, that decision should be followed. When ArbCom explicitly tells people not to change styles without reason, that decision must be followed, or blocks, like this one, result. Please note that if you repeat this behavior after the block is over, you will be reblocked, and it might just be indefinitely next time. If you want to change the guidelines, feel free to propose a change at WT:MOS after your block expires; alternatively, if there is some pressing reason why any specific article should be changed, feel free to discuss it on that indivdual article (but note that the arbcom decision says there needs to be a compelling reason other than just personal preference). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your "formatting" edits

You still seem to be ignoring what you've been told about your MOS violations. Is this intentional?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically is the problem?

Noozgroop, I'm trying to understand what exactly is going wrong here. You were blocked twice before, once by me, for violating WP:ORDINAL. Last time I told you that if you did it again, I'd block you, probably indefinitely. Someone called to my attention this edit. Why are you continuing to make changes that you know are not allowed? Is it because you don't understand the guidelines? If so, please ask, and I will do my best to explain. Is it because you think the guidelines are wrong? If so, you should be starting a discussion at WT:MOSNUM to try to get consensus to change them. Is it because you think that the guidelines don't apply in this specific case (which is possible, since guidelines are flexible)? If so, then you need to be discussing the proposed changes on the article talk page before making them, since the guidelines do state there needs to be a specific reason. Note that the reason cannot be, of course, that you simply think that one looks better than the other. Or is it simply that you don't agree, don't care to do the work to get a new consensus, and are just so certain you're right that you're going to keep doing whatever you want? If its the latter, then blocking appears to be the only solution. Please try to explain--it's silly to block over style guidelines, but I will do it because the bigger problem is your refusal to discuss the issue and collaborate with others. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMBERS again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

June 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned time and again, and I guess you're lucky (that is, if you are here to hunt bears in the first place) that Qwyrxian didn't get here first. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, around noon in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome! Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NUMBERS

Your edit here to 666 Park Avenue has been reverted. The guideline at WP:ORDINAL states that "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words." As many others have told you, the Manual of Style also states "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". Clearly you have been warned (and blocked) for this behavior several times previously. I would advise you to stop before you are blocked again. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Felicity Huffman, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the same changes in direct violation of MOS:NUMBERS that you were blocked for before. Escalating blocks don't seem to have solved anything. You've never even tried to justify your changes in violation of that policy. Given that every time you do this, it causes work for other editors to fix your changes, it seems to me that allowing you to edit is causing more disruption than any benefit we might get. You can request an unblock if you like; I'm even willing to unblock you as long as you promise to never again change a number from spelled-out to numerical versions, ever, since you can't seem to figure out when it's okay and when it isn't. But absent such a promise, I don't see how we can let you edit, since you have demonstrated time and time again that you either don't understand our rules or don't agree with them. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]