User talk:DAAOEM91019

DAAOEM91019, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DAAOEM91019! 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 Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Chaos Ridden Years, 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 seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 18:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jusdafax. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to 2016 in heavy metal music— because it did not appear constructive. 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. Jus da fax 23:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Afterwords (The Gathering album), you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For all tid

Could you please provide a source for this edit? Best regards, Pajo Pajimir 13:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Zhou Youguang and Gish

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Shade Empire. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2017 (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).

DAAOEM91019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Listen, guys.... I know that i am not as good at editing as the rest of you, but i am not always some mean insolent vandalizing jerkbag. There are some times when i actually find some good sources from reliable websites, and when i actually revert some disruptive edits from other users ....and still you banned me from editing and reverted all of the edits i've done today! What's your problem, people?! What did i ever do to you? Why do you hate me so much? All you ever do is undo my edits and get me blocked. What do you have against me?! I've had enough of this madness. All i'm mostly doing is helping this online encyclopedia, more than just breaking apart its foundation, if you get the drift. So please, take the time to decide whether i should keep editing or stay blocked, for now or forever.... DAAOEM91019 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be acknowledging that you are vandalising Wikipedia, at least occasionally. If so, that's definitely grounds to block you indefinitely. But I'm not sure that's your claim. What I'm also not sure about is which of your edits you think fit WP:RS and WP:CITE. I couldn't find any, but I'm very definitely not excluding the possibility that some of your edits were reliably cited. Can you please point to some you made yesterday that you believe fit those criteria? Yamla (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2017 (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.

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).

DAAOEM91019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well, there are the articles for those two new albums, Nightmares in the Waking State: Part II by Solution .45 and Into the Night World by Machinae Supremacy. I thought it wasn't good enough that the former album would be considered only progressive metal and symphonic metal, and the latter album being considered just power metal. So I tried to find some good reviews proving that those two albums would always be melodic death metal and SID Metal, respectively. Those were the best reviews I could find, so what's the deal with them? Then there's the article for the new Disney series, Milo Murphy's Law. I found those upcoming episodes on its own Wiki in Wikia, and they are sourced. So I thought I would add those upcoming episodes to Wikipedia, with those sources. The sources are all real, and not fake rumors, so is there anything wrong with any of them? Please take some time to examine the sources I used for the articles I have mentioned, and decide whether you should un-revert those edits or not.... DAAOEM91019 (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blogs, wikis and social networks are not reliable sources. See WP:RELIABLE. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (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.

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).

DAAOEM91019 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know....but I didn't use Wikia as a source, I just got the info from that Wiki with the sources from other websites already used. DAAOEM91019 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block has now expired so the appeal is moot. Just Chilling (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2017 (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.

March 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at DragonForce. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Into the Night World

The article Into the Night World has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:NALBUMS the sources include the group's official fan group, a stock image and a streaming of the album from loudwire with no review of the album a part from the phrase "an engaging effort". Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Domdeparis (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at No Grave But the Sea. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dream Theater. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello DAAOEM91019, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Milo Murphy's Law have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two Steps from Hell

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Two Steps from Hell. However, with this edit, I note that you directly copied my edit summary to support your own addition. While I assume good faith in your edits, I would kindly request that you do not do this again, as an uninvolved editor may incorrectly assume that we are sockpuppets, which can cause unnecessary drama for the both of us. Hope you understand. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 10:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at DragonForce. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Blind Guardian. Binksternet (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DAAOEM91019 - You've been blocked numerous times for violating this policy. Because of this, you will need to appeal your block to an administrator and demonstrate that you understand and will comply with this policy before you will be able to continue editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]