User talk:Henry Mazzer

Recent edit to Nick Grimshaw
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nick Grimshaw, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton email controversy
I've reverted your undiscussed page move of Hillary Clinton email controversy. Wikipedia uses "email". Please don't perform any page moves without discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not move such important pages without discussion, especially after you have already been reverted. Feel free to take it up on the talk page. Thanks, GABHello! 17:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now begun a talk. Henry Mazzer (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. GABHello! 18:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Hillary Clinton email controversy, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hillary Clinton email controversy. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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.
 * I perused your points Scjessey and the judgement was quite clear. Please seek further approval if wishing to re-insert the gutter English. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested page protection. I encourage further discussion. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Hillary Clinton email controversy, you may be blocked from editing. Scjessey (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Implausible redirects and non-encyclopedic content
Hi Henry Mazzer. I'm puzzled about some of your recent contributions, for example these redirects
 * Don't split the infinitives→Split infinitive
 * Don't end sentences in prepositions→Preposition
 * End with full stops→Full stop
 * Start with capitals→Letter case

These are not likely search terms, misnomers or typos. Please review WP:RPURPOSE to better understand the purpose of redirects. Thank you.- MrX 00:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've solved the issue now with this edit. Henry Mazzer (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. It is disruptive for you to keep changing "email" to "e-mail", the version you prefer, in the face of clear consensus for the other version. If you do it again, at this or at any other article, you will be blocked for edit warring/disruptive editing. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there's another issue: personal attacks. Your edit summary for this edit included an implied accusation that the other user is a sockpuppet. That is a serious allegation and should not be made without evidence. In this case the accusation is obviously false, in fact ridiculous: the other user has made 35,000 edits and has been here since 2007. Personal attacks can be grounds for a block, and you are hereby warned not to do it again. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't heard the last of this Melanie. This is NOT over. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean? SQL Query me!  19:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No more changes of "email" from me. I now formally end this crusade. However if you wish to know what I mean, keep an eye on my contributions. I do everything by the book. Henry Mazzer (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation
This is a notification that I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer regarding what I feel to be inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
Given the vandalism spree on which you've just gone, I've indefinitely blocked this account. If there is a legitimate explanation for this, post an explanation or an unblock request and someone will review it shortly. &#8209; Iridescent 18:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)