User talk:TerriblyTerrible

December 2010
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Michael Johns (singer), as "minor" only if they truly 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. Aspects (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Billboard references
I do not know how you can claim that the Billboard references include no such references to the provided rankings. Right under the album or song info, there is a chart history section that does reference the provided rankings, so you need to stop removing these Billboard references. Aspects (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

John Shanks mention on Michael Johns (singer)
I ask that you please stop adding John Shanks mention that he wrote the song "Heart on My Sleeve". Since the song has its own article, Shanks name is already there and is not needed on the autobiography article of Michael Johns. Also you need to start using a edit summaries so other editors know why you made your edit. Finally per WP:BRD, once an BOLD edit you have made has been reverted, you need to either start a discussion at the article talk page or start a discussion on the reverter's user talk page, instead of continually reverting back to your preferred version. Aspects (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's appropriate that the song's actual writer be mentioned. It otherwises implies that the article's subject authored it, which he didn't. TerriblyTerrible (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence in the article states that John released the single and then it is listed in his discography. Nowhere is it implied that Johns wrote the song, nowhere else on Wikipedia do we mention song authors in other biographical articles when there is an article on the song.  If a reader wants to see who wrote the song, they simply have to click on the link and read the infobox.  Now that I am looking at the infobox, is there a reason you are leaving out one of the song's authors.  The changes you make imply that only Shanks wrote the song, which is incorrect.  You need to discuss this and come up with a consensus instead of reverting to your preferred version. Aspects (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Archived old discussions
Please stop adding back archived old discussions at Talk:Michael Johns (singer). Your first edit,, stated "restore deleted talk page comments." This edit summary was false since the talk page comments were not deleted but were archived with a link to the archive. You obviously knew they were archived because you added back the comments exactly while also changing the archive link that the bot uses to a completely different archive link. You reverted my edit,, with the edit summary of "Keep comments on talkmpage" and once again linking to an incorrect archive link. Old discussions do not necessarily have to be on the main talk page since after a certain time the discussions will grow stale and will no longer get responses. In this case after 45 days of no discussion, they will be archived by the bot to the archive link. This archive was created over three and a half years ago, so you need to come up with a better excuse than a false one or that they should be on the talk page seemingly because that's where you prefer them to be. The comments are still located on Wikipedia and are one click away from the talk page. Per WP:BRD, please respond here instead of reverting back to your preferred version. Aspects (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments are relevant and belong on the page. TerriblyTerrible (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments are relevant, of that there is no argument. But just because you think the comments are relevatn does not explain why you would undo a bot's action from three and a half years ago.  Once a discussion is no longer being discussed it can be archived.  The discussions are still located on Wikipedia and anyone can find them by clicking one link.  Your action also does not explain why you posted a false edit summary saying they were deleted or why you would change the archive link to a wrong link.  You need to discuss the issue here instead of continually reverting just because you want the comments on the main talk page. Aspects (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael Johns - The Rising's album
As already explained, even though Michael Johns claimed the album never saw the light of day, both Amazon here and iTunes here gave 2003 as the release date. Michael Johns could very well have been mistaken because at that time Maverick was being taken over by Warner Music Group and it was in upheaval, or it could have been just his way of saying that it was never promoted and so sunk without trace. There is therefore uncertainty as to what happened, so it is not wise to add the word "unreleased" because we are not sure what had happened then. Please don't blindly follow references when there are other indications that what's said may not be correct or is uncertain. Hzh (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
I have reverted your edit because you have deliberately removed content saying that it is to be consistent with the citation, when you have actually deleted the citations. Other contents are in the citations as well, and you even undo my attempts to replace dead link by reverting them back to dead links. Using false reason in the edit summary to justify deletion of content is an unconstructive act, and I will take this as evidence that you have no intention to engage in constructive edit. Hzh (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You are wrong about that as I will point out in my next edit. TerriblyTerrible (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. Did you even looked at the link I gave for Amazon?  There is a review for it dated 2005 here, so Michael Johns must have been wrong.  The CD was released, otherwise how can there be a review by a buyer? Hzh (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

January 2014
I see you are back to doing the same thing. If you don't bother to check the cite, then you won't know that is cited there. Do take this as a warning that any further attempt to remove content without correct reason will be met further warning until you get blocked. Hzh (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is trivial and totally unencyclopedic. TerriblyTerrible (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
Looks like you are back to your old tricks, deleting sourced information. Given that the source for the album is in the text, it would seem that you didn't even bother to read the article before deciding that there is no source. Any further attempt to delete sourced information will be regarded as deliberate vandalism. Also if you have no idea what is notable, as can be seen from your question in the Michael Johns talk page, then please refrain from removing information because you think they are not notable. Hzh (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not properly sourced and likely inaccurate in this bizarre, promotional bio. TerriblyTerrible (talk) 01:10, 3 August 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, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether you are deliberately not understanding what was written or not, so I will spelt it out one last time, the links to the sources are given in the text. Hzh (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Michael Johns 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. Hzh (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Michael Johns (singer). 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. Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

January 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Johns (singer), List of deaths in rock and roll, 2014 in American music, Deaths in August 2014 and others, 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. ''You behavior suggest an obsession with deletion of content that has anything to do with Michael Johns, trying to marginalise a person. Please note that his notability is not for you to decide, there are enough press reports to suggest notability, and assertion that he is not notable is not a valid reason. Hzh (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)'' Hzh (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)