User talk:99.249.219.4

May 2014
Hello, I'm Tutelary. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Kemp Muhl, 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. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kemp Muhl. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Kemp Muhl was changed by 99.249.219.4 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.986211 on 2014-05-14T22:42:29+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Kemp Muhl, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kemp Muhl, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Kemp Muhl was changed by 99.249.219.4 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.98616 on 2014-05-15T23:00:37+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content 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! Materialscientist (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kemp Muhl, 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. I am One of Many (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Materialscientist (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kemp Muhl, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Kemp Muhl was changed by 99.249.219.4 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.986161 on 2014-05-18T07:04:14+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2014
Your edits at Vaporwave have the strong appearance of spamming, which is not accepted in Wikipedia. Given that the album was released yesterday, any suggestion that it has been recognized as an example of vaporwave style is not credible.

If the album is your work, please understand that this is not a critique of the music. You simply need to find other ways to promote it. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not my work. The album, after one day of release, has cracked the top 300 (and climbing) most popular Vaporwave releases on Bandcamp.com, surpassing some of the most recognized albums in the genre, like Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol.1, and Fuji Grid TV's Prism Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.219.4 (talk • contribs)


 * That is commendable so far as it goes, but it doesn't establish the album as a notable example of vaporwave style. What would establish it is a statement to that effect from a reliable source. Influential music gets recognized in writing all the time. There's no rush. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Do not link to rateyourmusic.com as a source. User generated sites are not accepted as reliable sources, and one only needs to look at rateyourmusic.com's address to see that it's user generated.  Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources for more info.  Also:

Your recent editing history at Vaporwave shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Vaporwave. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vaporwave. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

What you've done wrong
Did you bother reading the notices on your page? The ones saying "don't add unsourced information" and "quit edit-warring"...? Then there's the part of my talk page saying "leave new messages at the bottom." If this site didn't operate off of text, I'd have to assume you were illiterate. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Troll needs blocking. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month 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:. 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that some of the registered users were rough with you. I reported the editing dispute hoping that someone would intervene constructively, but I cannot control who responds to the report and how they act. If you want to continue contributing to Wikipedia please do so with the requirements of verifiability and reliable sourcing in mind. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
Please do not add or change content, as you did to Vaporware, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Vaporwave. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Vaporwave shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Timid Orpheus (December 17)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rankersbo was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Timid Orpheus and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:99.249.219.4 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rankersbo&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:99.249.219.4 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rankersbo (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Humbug (album), you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=668224147 your edit] to In the Aeroplane over the Sea may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * id=in-the-aeroplane-over-the-sea-mw0000032195|pure_url=yes}} "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea Review"]. Allmusic. Retrieved on November 15, 2007. Robert Christgau rated the album
 * id=in-the-aeroplane-over-the-sea-mw0000032195|pure_url=yes}} "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea Review"]. Allmusic. Retrieved on November 15, 2007. Robert Christgau rated the album

Draft:Timid Orpheus concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Timid Orpheus, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Timid Orpheus


Hello, 99.249.219.4. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Timid Orpheus".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Rankersbo (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)