User talk:Prenigmamann

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Prenigmamann, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

Big Mac

When you remove sourced information from an article, please provide a reason on the edit summary (that's the small box directly below the main editing box); otherwise, editors may assume your removals are vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you remove what appears to be reliably sourced information, and don't provide an edit summary or explain on the article's talk page, your edits will be reverted, and you may be eventually blocked from editing. Please explain why you think that info should be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramones

Hi. "The" is not part of the Ramones' band name. This has been discussed a number of times on the article's talk page. The band's logo and all of their album covers simply say "Ramones", not "The Ramones". You still need to use a "the" in front of the band's name in running text, for proper grammar, but it should not be capitalized as it is not part of the proper noun, nor should it be bolded in the lead sentence or included in the infobox banner. This is the same situation as many other bands that do not include "the" as part of their name, for example Sex Pistols, Descendents, and Dead Kennedys (as opposed to The Clash, The Cure, or The Offspring). --IllaZilla (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Ramones, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. 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. As explained above, "the" is not part of the band's name. You appear to have ignored this note and have reverted to your preferred version anyway. Further reversions without establishing consensus via discussion on the article's talk page will be treated as disruptive. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is such a critical thing to be watching for. Good job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prenigmamann (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it's so difficult to read a simple note and not edit-war about it. Good job! --IllaZilla (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Radiopathy •talk• 15:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear to what you are referring. All of my edits are in good faith. Can you be more specific?

Many of your recent edits are simply reversions of other people's edits. This is edit warring, and we don't much cotton to that. You also seem to be genre warring. If you continue you could be blocked as noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Radiopathy does is track my contributions and revert them. I'm simply reverting them back.

Yes, because you edit against consensus by making these genre changes. That comment indicates you are aware of what you're doing and that you will continue to do so, so if you are blocked it will be indefinite. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also added factually incorrect content to S&P 500 and deleted correct content, and then edit warred when you were reverted. Radiopathy •talk• 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything factually incorrect to the S&P article- just for the record. I know more about the dynamics of that index than you ever will, so I am happy to leave it unchanged and incorrect as it is now, and as are most wiki articles.

Genre warring

You've been asked by an administrator not to edit war or genre war, and told that you could be indef blocked if you do it again. You could be blocked for your recent edit to Emerson, Lake & Palmer.

Genre changes need to be cited with a reliable source; you can also open a discussion at an artist's/song's talk page and try to arrive at consensus. The way you went about this in the above edit doesn't work. Radiopathy •talk• 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other genres don't have sources. :)

John Aleksic

You have removed John Aleksic from The Raspberries article at least twice recently. However, Aleksic is included in the band history at the official Raspberries website (Timeline 1970). Aleksic is also mentioned in the Allmusic band biography. If you want to contest the information available from these two sources, then I suggest you present your proof and sources at The Raspberries talkpage and try to reach consensus for your edit. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never anyone by that name in this band, but who cares? This is why wikipedia is a pos. Not interested in an edit war. It isn't that important that this article be correct, as most aren't.

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by some administrator on a power trip. My edits are as good as anyone else's. So I can't edit right now, but I can still read Wikipedia articles when I want mis-information, right?

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]