User talk:Beastphones

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this recent edit to Lowell Bekker, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowell Bekker with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Keb25 (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but that is NOT vandalism. I do not wish to be called a spammer, or a simple purposed user. I JUST started Wikipedia, and you're already labeling me. Not cool. --Beastphones (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Beastphones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 04:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that you feel you had a rough welcome, but usually the type of editing you have performed is frowned upon by the community - in particular removing warning templates that exist for purpose. If yu feel like you want to contribute to editing wikipedia, please read the above information.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 04:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning for Vandalism

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have already been warned about edits that constitute vandalism. This latest edit of yours is vandalism. You have been warned twice, a third edit of vandalism may get your account blocked. Bgwhite (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of vandalizing and mud slinging, you should take a moment and read first. There is no "M". SPA - Single Purpose Account Wikipedia:SPA. You should also read WP:MUSICBIO, which defines when a musician is notable. Bgwhite (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you calling me a fool? You don't listen, do you? You're the one who should 'take a moment and read first'. The article we're talking about fits in the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, #11. It does not specify how many times it must be played, but the term national means across the country in multiple major cities. You don't think the article should be on Wikipedia because you don't consider someone under the age of 18 to be notable in any way. There are multiple signed and unsigned artists who would fit under #11 in WP:MUSICBIO who are under 18. Furthermore, you continue to mock me using SPA attachments, though I refuse to be labeled as such. Another possibility could be that you are homophobic. I don't know what your problem is, but the article we are talking about CLEARLY fits under WP:MUSICBIO. So before intentionally calling me a fool, why don't you go back and read those articles? Thank you. --Beastphones (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it meets WP:MUSICBIO or not is what the discussion is about, just because you believe it so does it make it so. However, using the template {{SPA}} incorrectly, while not exactly vandalism as Bgwhite claims, is very much a disruptive edit - the equivalent of vandalism. Please read WP:SPA - User:Bgwhite definitely doesn't fit the bill as he has over 65870 edits with a very diverse editing history. I know you consider it unfair that you are being labeled an SPA, but please read WP:SPA - this is not necessarily a bad thing, but something that we take into account in discussions, in particular deletion discussions. The only way to stop being labeled an SPA is to stop being one, by constructively editing other topics. --Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 00:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it's fair that I can be labeled as such and not be able to fight it, or argue against it. I've been editing other articles also, and I do hope to continue to edit and contribute to Wikipedia. But I'd like this 'Bgwhite' to instead of fight against, work to expand the article we are talking about. --Beastphones (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand it feels unfair, but it is almost a rite of passage here: if you survive it and become a committed editor the appellation will disappear - just read WP:SPA, it explains it all. Not being an SPA requires both time and edits, so even if you are editing other topics, the appellation will remain for sometime. However, calling an editor SPA who is not one, well, that is not OK. I think Bgwhite needs a big, frosty beer and not bite you... but he is as entitled to advocate deleting the article as you are to argue for not deleting it. However, he did say something true, which is if you continue this behavior, you will be blocked. Also, please read and follow the links in the above welcome message - I think you would find it useful. --Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 03:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]