Jump to content

User talk:TheMetallican

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2011

[edit]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Black Sabbath worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes 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 to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kesha, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kesha, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Evanescence, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
You recently made a submission to Articles for Creation. Your article has been reviewed and because some issues were found, it could not be accepted in its current form. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. Feel free to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! IllaZilla (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Exploited. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. You've had several warnings for disruptive editing. Wikipedia is NOT a source. Please stop adding genres without source or discussion. Quibus (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at The Exploited, you may be blocked from editing. Please STOP your editing, Wikipedia is NOT a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quibus (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC) (Thanks SineBot, Quibus (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC))[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Slipknot (band), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Quibus (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --SineBot (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --SineBot (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Nu metal, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – Confession0791 talk 01:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Before I Forget (song), you may be blocked from editing. – Richard BB 00:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Twisted Sister. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at The Exploited, you may be blocked from editing. Friginator (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Let's Start a War, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Friginator (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You recently changed multiple genres on Black Veil Brides related pages. I'm not saying that your edits are bad, or that they are vandalism, as they were done in good faith, but I would recommend that you stop changing so much stuff cause the people here on Wikipedia might block you... but what you can do is, instead of removing genre, limit yourself to only adding them. Just because you think a genre is wrong, doesn't mean you can just remove it. They don't like deconstructive edits, and immediately revert it back to its previous state. And as for your edit to We Stitch These Wounds, it was also done in good faith, but please click the "Show preview" button down below the editing workspace before saving the page, as you used the wrong coding to put the Knives and Pens single in. A little advice: what I do is look at similar Wikipedia pages and copy their coding, but change the words in the codes to match what I want. Like you could've went to Set the World on Fire (Black Veil Brides album) and looked at how they put in the singles for that album. I'm not condemning you, or saying I'll block you, as that would only be deconstructive. I simply want to give you advice and help you edit Wikipedia as efficiently as possible. I actually hope you don't get blocked, so I hope you take my advice, and if you need any help editing Wikipedia, you can talk to me on my talk page. Well, that's all I have to say. Happy editing! P.S.: Metallica is awesome Thatemooverthere (Talk) 18:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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. 5 albert square (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to The Leaving Song Pt. II, 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 to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Very Proud of Ya, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Like Phantoms, Forever, you may be blocked from editing. Friginator (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Vampires Will Never Hurt You, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Friginator (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Faint (song), 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 to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Papercut (song), without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, you may be blocked from editing. Friginator (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as seen in In the End, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Friginator (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Tiderolls 01:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FOR FRIGINATOR AND ILLAZILLA. I'm holding a discussion for the moment now. I can't talk on the sockpuppet investigation thingy you guys had about me. So I want to talk to you guys here. I want to talk about my emergence of editing Wikipedia and how I was first a novice but then I started using other stuff on how to learn how to use Wikipedia. It's because when I had this account I didn't know how to cite sources correctly and I didn't understand the Wikipolicy very well. But yet I tried submitting an unblock request once with a ticket system, but I didn't get any response. Not anything. So I decided it would be a decision to make another account or use IP versions instead because my requests weren't noticed. I didn't know about sockpuppetry and that it was wrong. Mostly because a lot of people on like social networks make new accounts after suspension. But the thing about editing is when I first edited, I got really excited and was like "This is fun! I want to edit more stuff. Just look for some stuff that can't be correct at all." But when I get blocked, my habit is resuming and I just wanna keep going because it's fun. Let's talk about this thing and I'll talk about how my IPs kept switching when I edit in certain spots in my apartment. Anyways, we'll discuss it now. --TheMetallican (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we won't discuss it. You have already been given instruction on how to appeal your block (see the block notice). That is your only avenue through which to discuss having your editing privileges restored. It does not matter what your motivation was for creating sockpuppets, or that your editing has gotten better since you've socked. If the state suspends your driver's license, but you decide to drive anyway, it does not matter if you follow all the rules of the road perfectly from then on; You will still be arrested if caught driving with a suspended license. Same here: Once blocked, you are not allowed to edit until your block is lifted. Creating multiple alternate accounts and editing anonymously in order to bypass the block is a direct violation of policy; It doesn't matter if you make absolutely perfect edits from then on, you are still in violation of policy. You must appeal your block here, following the instruction given above, and you must demonstrate an understanding of why you were blocked and make it clear that you won't repeat the same behavior in the future. Though with the amount of sockpuppetry you've done over the last few months, I wouldn't hold your breath. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This sudden willingness to cooperate doesn't seem very sincere, considering that you've continued to edit via sock accounts after posting it. This edit made by one of your sockpuppet accounts was made just a few hours ago, yet you posted the previous message yesterday. You clearly know your behavior is inappropriate, yet you continue to behave the exact same way. And the abusive attitude you've expressed towards other editors through your many, many other accounts is itself worthy of a block, so your chances of being unblocked seem virtually nonexistent. Friginator (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I talked about what makes me have sockpuppetry. The thing about sockpuppetry is that it's a habit. The thing is that when I see completely incorrect or weird edits, it's very tempting. So therefore, it makes me just want to go and just edit it. I get kind of impatient to wait and that's why it happens. I don't call to be worthy of being unblocked yet. AT LEAST wait until December 24th 2012. Sorry Friginator, I did it because of that one guy who did it to IllaZilla who reverted his edits on 30 seconds to mars and Alesana and MCR and stuff so he made a parody to IllaZilla. I don't agree with his edits, but it kind of made me a little like it was something funny. But I guess I should remember I should use the comedy wiki site for that encyclopedia.dramatica. But I don't use it often. I'm sorry, Friginator. But I need to hear advice on how I can't get tempted to reverting certain edits. It's a habit. I never saw it illegal or anything. But I'll wait til December. At least but I'll talk about it here with you guys. I didn't want to discuss how to appeal a block, just to explain why I kept violating a blocking policy and how I had a habit. I want advice because it's obvious you will identify my edits. But I will tell you this: I didn't know how to use wikipedia very well like citing sources and many others and that's kind of how I got towards a block. I should have read my messages and then that won't happen. --TheMetallican (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's very simple: Don't sockpuppet. Just don't. "Wikiholism" is just an excuse. When you create a new account to bypass your block, you know darn well what you are doing and can simply choose not to do it. If you see an egregious error or vandalism in an article, bring it up on that article's talk page and someone else will fix it. That would be an excellent step in the right direction, showing that you can contribute constructively while still obeying the rules. If you can do this for a while, you may be able to make a credible case for having your block lifted. But if you keep socking, that's just never going to happen. Don't be that guy. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I'm going to try to edit in a careful way or revert vandalizing or egregious edits/errors, I'll have to revert it, but I think I should tell the person on the talk page so they don't do it again. Otherwise they'd think I'm reverting the edit to "control" the page. But I don't like how some users on wikipedia will see an edit such as this and see how it has been sourced reliably but then they just remove it. They'll say "just cause they scream doesn't mean it's screamo" or "you have vandalized the page (even though reliable sources were used)" and I think it's just ridiculous. Like how someone on the talk page for the screamo band Escape the Fate just denied what I put despite all the sources I had before Tide rolls indefinitely blocked me and the discussion lacked consensus or disproof of my sources and info I wanted to add. So sometimes people refuse to accept reliable sources. But I'll wait at least a while before request an unblock ticket since now isn't a good time. I think it's possible 12/24/12 is a good date unless I'm not ready yet. According to you, which would you recommend? --TheMetallican (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Well if I'm going to try to edit in a careful way or revert vandalizing or egregious edits/errors, I'll have to revert it" -- This leads me to believe that you're going to continue editing around your block. Don't. If you seem something wrong, bring it up on the article's talk page and let someone else address it. At that point it makes no difference if you're providing sources or if your edits are completely correct; they're still going to be reverted. It's like I said earlier: It doesn't matter if you drive like a saint, the cops will still arrest you if they find you driving with a suspended license. The only thing to do is not drive (not edit) until your suspension (block) is up. You've dug yourself a pretty deep grave with the amount of socking you've done, not to mention straight up lying about it, vandalizing another editor's userpage to sling profane insults at them, and saying "fuck you Wikipedia" and professing to abandon editing and then just creating a new sockpuppet 24 hours later. It's going to take a long time and a lot of work to regain the community's faith, most likely more than 2 months given the crap you've pulled. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying you will have to be careful, deliberate, and most importantly honest and civil in your actions in order to pull it off. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that I do it when I'm UNblocked. But I decided to just confess and talk about why it happened. On December 24th I'll decide if I can be unblocked or not due to the shaking I made. I do have a confusion with uploads of pics. I don't get how to upload without a copyright violation since I tried sourcing the URL And crediting the author. If I can be unblocked in a while if I am sure I'm ready, I plan I can create new articles like bands that haven't got on here. What made me wanna say "fuck you wikipedia" or post offensive things on a wall of Friginator was these two guys who got blocked and one was TheWikiTroll500 or something and one guy who was editing MCR and 30STM and stuff and did it to you. I disagree with many of his edits towards bands though. I forgot his name. TheMetallican (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)TheMetallican (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you just did it again. And apparently even through socks you're still not bothering to try and build consensus or ANY of the things you "promised" to do earlier in this discussion. You're STILL genre-warring. You're clearly not taking any of this seriously, you know exactly what you're doing and it's a waste of time trying to talk to you. And I guarantee that no one will unblock you at this point. You have made it virtually impossible. I'm just going to step away from this idiotic "discussion" of yours now. Friginator (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that one isn't me. The ones such as Getback27 or Slipknot197666 and stuff were me. But that one isn't me. He only edits deathcore and death metal pages mostly. Many of the stuff he edited I never paid attention to at all. If you really are going to look at just edits on a few pages well then that doesn't make me that guy. Be a real juror. Not this, "He edited the same page or had one similar edit but there are pages he edited the metallican never changed. Check the IP and use the ones you found by me. A few were in town restaurant and stuff but obviously I'll know you'll accuse me of this. But you lack evidence. Sorry but that ain't me. I'll tell you which socks I am. TheMetallican (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)User:TheMetallican (User talk:TheMetallican) 15:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLANKING

[edit]

Read the guideline. If you want to seek unblock, that's fine. If you want to screw around, find another playground. Tiderolls 15:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wattie Buchan

[edit]

Hello TheMetallican. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Wattie Buchan".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wattie Buchan}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheMetallican&oldid=1141378374"