User talk:Adamclemance13

Adamclemance13, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Adamclemance13! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Osarius (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bon Appétit (song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Glory Days (Little Mix album). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Raritydash (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Heatstroke (song). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Iknow23 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Louis Tomlinson. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ss 112 09:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Deal

Please refrain from creating articles in wrong namespaces, as you did with Real Deal (Jessie J's song). Real Deal (Jessie J song) already exists as a redirect, you should create your content on top of it. We do not use apostrophe s'es in disambiguators unless the artist's name includes one. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Mess

Please stop cretaing articles at incorrect namespaces, as you did with More Mess (Kungs song). More Mess and More Mess (song) already existed, you should've created your content at More Mess, as there is no other article with the same title, no disambiguation is needed. It's obvious that you are deliberately avoiding to create articles in namespaces that are already redirected by other editors, doing so is considered disruptive. Moreover, the articles you create are wholly unsourced, which conflicted with our verifiability policies. They also failed to meet WP:NSONG, meaning that the songs are not notable enough to warrant its own article. Hayman30 (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Real Deal (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hayman30 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Deal (song) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Real Deal (song), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. — TheMagnificentist 09:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Real Deal (song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Real Deal (song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Deal (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 18:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Your recent editing history at More Mess shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Hayman30 (talk) 14:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at More Mess.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Za wl 14:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made any effort to communicate on Wikipedia at all, whether via edit summaries or talk pages (either here or on the article). @Hayman30: If this block expires without appeal and the user goes straight back to reverting, ping me and I'll block them indefinitely. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: They're back it again with IPs. Hayman30 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's their IPs? It might seem likely but it wouldn't be fair to simply accuse them or anyone of sockpuppetry without providing concrete evidence. — Za wl 17:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could take it as merely assuming but they basically admitted it themselves below by replying shortly after you made the last revert. They seemed to stopped reverting and showed willingness to talk so I guess it should be fine until the reversion persists. Hayman30 (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayman30 I just don't get why can't we have an article about the song. Adamclemance13 17:53, 22 August 2017 (BST)

Please read what I wrote at Talk:More Mess. The song is not notable enough to have its own article and everything else besides chart positions is unsourced. Keep restoring the page isn't going to solve the issue nor stop anyone from reverting your changes. Hayman30 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hayman30 So because the song isn't popular it can't have an article. Adamclemance13 18:08, 22 August 2017 (BST)

Essentially, yes. To be more specific, it's not considered popular on Wikipedia according to our notability guidelines on songs. Your attempt to mention me didn't work by the way. Hayman30 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: This user seems to be edit-warring across several articles again! Clearly, they are not here to edit constructively. livelikemusic talk! 12:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. livelikemusic talk! 02:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop restoring articles with no explanation whatsoever, as you did today at Stargazing (Kygo song). You have been warned for doing this across multiple pages, and you have shown no willingness to communicate with other editors concerning your repetitive recreation of articles. Any more of this sort of purely disruptive behavior and you will be facing a indefinite block. Hayman30 (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Adamclemance13 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: ). Thank you. livelikemusic talk! 20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Glory Days (Little Mix album) and other articles

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long-term edit warring with no response to other editors' concerns.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. A message left on your talk back in August indicated you could be blocked indef if this pattern resumed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Adamclemance13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21004 was submitted on Mar 25, 2018 15:02:46. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]