User talk:Wearypoet

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

January 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from R. Kelly with this edit. When removing content, 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 content 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. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 11:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Wearypoet, 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:

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dan56 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Weeknd, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to R. Kelly, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm doing is fixing R. Kelly's page. There are way too many frauds lingering around and editing damaging, false info.

April 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at R. Kelly. 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. Thank you.

P.S. I added more citations to that point regarding the marriage; too many sources cite its existence for it to be proven false. Unless you can come up with a published source that states otherwise, and start a discussion on Talk:R. Kelly to prove your information to be true, and get a consensus reached for your information and view to be accepted by the Wikipedia community, I would highly advise dropping the stick. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR[edit]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - Stop edit warring. You don't like the content. That's obvious. Stop making your arguments through edit summaries and follow the steps at WP:DR. --Onorem♠Dil 23:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at R. Kelly. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Steel1943 (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from R. Kelly discography without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! STATic message me! 10:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Download. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to R. Kelly, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -download 04:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at R. Kelly. 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. Thank you. -- dsprc [talk] 11:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing his page is disruptive? Making dubious edits is what's disruptive. I'm seeing copy infringement and sentences with no references so I'm gonna fix his page. I don't see any celebrity with a mugshot on their Wikipedia page cause it's not need and like I said, it's copy infringement and not properly cited. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearypoet (talk • contribs)
You should read WP:Disruptive editing because it answers your question. You have been warned enough already.
What is "dubious"? The statements are backed-up by reliable sources and Government documents in the official public record; that is good enough. If you have a problem with the content, you address that on the talk page; we work by consensus here and there seems to be community consensus toward inclusion of this content. Did you ever think that we lack mugshots for the celebrities that we can actually include, and that may be the reason they're not prevalent? I know for a fact that Bill Gates has one, Al Capone, Debra Lafave, Jim Morrison etc.
I'm not the only one to revert your edits to that article - infact, almost none of your "contributions" have stuck, so maybe the content isn't the issue here? I also see that your talk page is littered with warnings about your content removal and it appears your single purpose is to censor such references. If you have an honest to $DEITY policy objection then go ahead and state it now, otherwise, I am going to have to ask that you stop this disruptive editing so I don't have to bring your behaviour up at a noticeboard (which I really do not want to do) which may result in banishment or your being blocked and losing editing privileges.
As for your completely bogus claims about copyright infringement: nominate the file for deletion on Commons if that is the case - at which point, you will be laughed away because all documents and content produced by the State of Florida, municipalities therein, or agents working on their behalf, are in the Public Domain and not subject to copyright status (except under rare circumstances). Thanks. -- dsprc [talk] 18:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop trolling and get a life. Many of my contributions have stuck. Perhaps you need to find something better to do than trolling Wikipedia and commenting on editors pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearypoet (talk • contribs)
Again, if you believe the image is copyright infringement, then nominate it for deletion. Since you can not articulate a valid policy rationale for the continued content removal, I will assume that you have none and will simply ask that you immediately stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank the legal section of Sylvester's page now or in the future, I will report you and let the Admin sort it out. -- dsprc [talk] 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Stop trolling R. Kelly's page, and get a life! - Sushuki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushuki12 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R. Kelly, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mya, Sparkle and Maxwell. 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) 09:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to R. Kelly videography may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ref name="Video Static">{{cite web|url=http://www.mvdbase.com/video.php?id=15321 |title=I Wish (To the Homies That We Lost - R. Kelly |publisher=videostatic.com |accessdate=September 19, 2014}}</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: ). Thank you. -- dsprc [talk] 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wearypoet, it looks like you've been conducting an edit war at R. Kelly since August. For example, in this edit you removed almost 8,000 bytes of content from the article. Others constantly disagree with your removals and they restore the material. Your changes do not have consensus. Do you want to reply at WP:AN3#User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: ) and explain why you should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston , that user who has reported is constantly trolling R. Kelly's page. How do I report him for abusing the edit? He is constantly reverting every single edit. Wearypoet (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)WearypoetWearypoet (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 22 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at R. Kelly[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at R. Kelly. 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 following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Your steady stream of reverts at R. Kelly since the protection expired don't correspond to any consensus you've been able to find on the article talk page. In the original 3RR complaint in September you were warned that "If the warring continues after protection expires, blocks are likely". I noted that, at the time of that complaint, you had never posted on the article talk page. You have improved a bit in the sense that you occasionally leave comments, but you are clearly not waiting to achieve consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston (talk), blocking me solved what?! You need to ban Dsprc for vandalism and trolling R. Kelly page. I don't appreciate this one signed block. Dsprc is constantly edit warring and he has been warned but he continues to do so. He contributes absolutely nothing on that page so he should be blocked. --- Wearypoet (talk) Wearypoet

Wikipedia:Blocking policy details the reasons that an Administrator may block an editor. EdJohnston explained to you their rationale for taking such actions. You are encouraged to read over the Wikipedia:Blocking policy page along with the long list of other policy pages that have been presented to you throughout the discussion of your disruptive and tendentious edits. If you would read these pages mayhaps you would understand why the community views this behaviour unacceptable. Understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, we are here to work together; your behaviour indicates you do not share these aims (please see: Wikipedia is not about winning).
I have unfortunately had to report you to WP:AN3 in light of your immediate disruptive edits with no regard to reaching consensus to the page upon the expiration of your temporary block. As before, you have the ability to respond there and state your case (including allegations against I). Namaste. -- dsprc [talk] 06:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dsprc, your behavior is unacceptable. You're trying to accuse me of something you do all the time (disruptive and tendentious edits). You constantly revert edits with no explanation just because you don't agree with it. You need to be blocked from editing that page.

"Understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, we are here to work together; your behaviour indicates you do not share these aims (please see: Wikipedia is not about winning)."

Funny because this is what YOU do. YOU constantly revert people's edits simply because YOU don't agree with it and you don't EXPLAIN why nor do you ASK. Once I'm unblocked, I'll be sure to inform the admins about your behavior of constantly harassing me and abusing the edit option on R. Kelly page. I even responded on the talk page but you never responded back but you want to be passive aggressive and act like you tried to reason?! That is false. You ignored my response and instead you want to run and report me before I can even say anything. I won't stand for that and the admins need to know about your behavior of consistently harassing users and edit warring. Wearypoet (talk) Wearypoet

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: ). Thank you. -- dsprc [talk] 04:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for resumption of reverting at R. Kelly after expiration of last block for edit warring. 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 following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

Unjust Wearypoet (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Wearypoet[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request 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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:30, 15 November 2014 (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.

Once again, another admin just randomly blocking with no reason. Dsprc is constantly harassing me and reverting all of my edits on R. Kelly for no reason (Edit warring) but whenever I undo his reverts he wants to report me and you guys just block me and let him go?! That is unjust. I've done absolutely nothing wrong to be blocked and I'm very disappointed that admins on here are dealing with this so unprofessionally. You don't just block people with no reason. The guy who reported me is a troll that constantly follows me around and he edits pages with no reason and when someone does something different he reverts with no explanation then runs off to report them. Wearypoet (talk) Wearypoet

Indefinite block[edit]

Apparently, even after being blocked twice for edit-warring at R. Kelly, you come back and recommence your battle. You are a WP:SPA who has no interest in anything except the Kelly article and articles related to Kelly. Your editing is disruptive, and you have no insight into your behavior. You are obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. I have therefore indefinitely blocked you. Your appeal rights are at WP:GAB.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, where have I been edit-warring?! Just because I added more information to the article?! and why does it matter that I don't edit other pages? What is it to you? You have no reason to indefinitely block me at all! Wearypoet (talk) Wearypoet
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wearypoet&oldid=1139116375"