User talk:Alen drummer

June 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Foot fetishism has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Foot fetishism was changed by Alen drummer (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.868961 on 2015-06-02T07:36:56+00:00.

July 2017
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Foot fetishism. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the information.

I'm sorry, but I did not add any unsourced content. I just rearranged parts of some sentences, and certain words, for better understanding. All I added were the names of notable foot fetishists. And after that, while I was putting references to all of their names (so the source of that "content" would be visible), you erased all of my changes. May I ask why?

Also, in one sentence, I added "painting partner's toenails" instead of "pedicures". Because "pedicure" itself doesn't necessarily mean only "painting toenails". It has the meaning of a whole cosmetic treatment, or it can also be a medical procedure, which is not "foot fetishism". --Alen the drummer (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You added a whole list of people claiming that they are foot fetishists, with absolutely no references. That's unsourced content. I removed it. I have no way of knowing whether you have references that you intend to add in the future. It's up to you to add the references when you add the material, particularly when it is on a subject such as this. It's verging on a WP:BLP violation to make unsourced claims such as this. Don't do it. If you have reliable sources that show these people are foot fetishists then add the sources. And that does not just mean some source that says that someone likes feet, or finds them attractive. It means a reliable source showing that the people have a sexual fetish about feet. And your edits are in no way minor edits. Stop labeling them as such. Meters (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Claims that these people are foot fetishists are not unsourced. It's pretty well known that they are. Because most of them openly said they were. Which is a positive thing, by the way. It's not considered as talking bad about someone if you say that they are foot fetishists.

Now, I cannot know if a certain article from the internet is good enough of a valid reference according to your personal opinion, or according to wikipedia's policy. Here is the internet page where all of the people mentioned as foot fetishists are, plus even more of them whom I did not mention.

So, now I have to wait for your approval to put it on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alen drummer (talk • contribs) 03:21, July 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * The claims were unsourced in your edit to Wikipedia, and Buzzfeed is not a reliable source. Don't add this material unless you have proper sources. Meters (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need my approval to make edits, but it appears to me that you do not understand sourcing or what a reliable source is. Read WP:RS. If you make more of these really questionable edits you might tend up blocked.Meters (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The place to ask about whether a particular source would be acceptable is Reliable sources/Noticeboard Meters (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, BuzzFeed might be an acceptable source for some claims, but I would never accept it for potential BLP-violating claims about sexual fetishes. Meters (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, no problem.

I will not put anyone's name in this article, but it's kinda stupid that some of the well known foot fetishists will not be mentioned in it. But ok, doesn't matter.

And also, I wanted to say: - It was only the first time that I had put someone's name on a page, in this case knowing that that someone IS a foot fetishist. So there's no need for accusing me of "unsourced content", potential "vandalism", or whatever. Also, there's no need for threatening that I might get blocked, and that kind of stuff. I'm just trying to make this article as best as it can be. It's a topic that I am more than familiar with, because I am also a huge foot fetishist myself.

Some of the sentences that I already did edit before (and you deleted my improvements), I will edit again, to improve the article. I hope that's ok. --Alen the drummer (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention vandalism. I mentioned unsourced edits, which they were, and potential BLP violations, which they are. What you claim to know is irrelevant. If you don't source it reliably when you add it to the article it is subject to be immediately removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. I've told you where how to check if your sources are acceptable. If you don't check and you go ahead and add more of these entries and they are unsourced or the sources are not acceptable, you may end up blocked. That's just a helpful comment, not a threat. And even making these unsourced claim about people's sexual fetishes on your talk page is unacceptable. Read WP:BLP. I suggest that you remove them. Meters (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Here, I removed those two people that I mentioned in a comment above. I hope everything's ok now.

Thanks for the advices. I will read the articles you sent to me.

Anyways, I don't intend to put anyone's names in any article, the same as I haven't done so, until just this one time. So, I won't need to put any sources or references anywhere. In the articles, I will only correct sentences' structures, or maybe add a word or a sentence here and there, just to improve an article with some additional information on the subject.

I hope there's no need to put a source or reference for any little piece of information added to an article, especially if it's not about any living or non-living being.--Alen the drummer (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask, is there a way to change my username. I just want to add "the" between "Alen" and "drummer". I see here, when I sign my answer to you, it is written "Alen the drummer" (as I actually want it to be, and wikipedia itself added that "the"), but my official username on wikipedia is still just "Alen drummer", and I still can't find a way to change it. Why is that? Alen the drummer (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Linkin Park. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Sorry, but what seems to be the problem? My edits are not disruptive, nor unconstructive. And my tendency is for everything to be correct and truthfull.

In an article about the band Linkin Park, it's important that Chester Bennington is at the top of the list of the band's past members, because he is by far the most noticeable and the most important past member of the band. You shouldn't have reverted my edit.

I don't understand why such a minor edit would be considered to be harmful in any way. Please, explain that. Because, I am not writing something that's not true, or anything like that. So do NOT treat me or "warn" me as I'm doing some kind of vandalism, or something like that.

Is there any other edit that you considered "disruptive" and "unconstructive", and reverted it?

Alen the drummer (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)