Matsuiny2004
|
December 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Dubstep. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Falcon8765 (TALK) 00:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
dubstep rap edit
hey matsuiny, i saw your comment (before you deleted it!) - my take on it would be that the article is probably too long as it is, and there's already a few mentions of hiphop and the like (public enemy). it would also perhaps overlap a little with Grime (music)? perhaps give it a little time to see if this sort of music becomes more than a minor footnote in the history of dubstep. it's still an evolving genre and therefore there's bound to be loads of interesting little musical offshoots from the main style. in fact, that's probably one of the biggest problems in documenting an evolving musical style on wiki.
3RR edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.
If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.
caps edit
hey matsuiny, it might be a good idea to keep an eye on capitalisation (ie 'Marilyn Manson', not 'marilyn manson') when editing articles. also, i've replied to your other query on my talk page. Kaini (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
rework of brostep edit
replied on my talk page. Kaini (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
12th planet edit
responded on Talk:Dubstep. Kaini (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Your Jerboa edits edit
Hi Matsuiny2004, If you want to reference a source more than once just give the reference a name in the <ref> tag. E.g. <ref name="Example2011">, the next time you want to reference that source then just put <ref name="Example2011" /> (notice the forward slash at the end). This way you don't have to enter the source in again and it will be grouped with the other mentions in the references section. Also be careful not to remove previous references unless they are inferior to the ones you are adding. Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- The text from ADW was copy-and-pasted from their site, this is in violation of Wikipedia's copyright rules. If you reference something please use your own words. Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very grateful for your edits but it would make it a lot easier if you took a little more care. When referencing please follow the structure I stated above (group references with the same source), if you need help with it just let me know. When writing about species they are referred to in the singular: its tail not their tail. Be careful with spacing before and after references. There is also a few sentences that you have copy-and-pasted twice into the article. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the offending sentences. Can you see how I've formatted the first ADW reference <ref name="ADW">? This gives the reference a "name" so it can be used again without typing the whole thing out. So next time you want to reference that particular source just add <ref name="ADW" />, which you can see I've done for the second reference. You can now replace all the other duplicate references with this. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's great. Now you can do the same for the Google Books references you've added. Just add the "name=" bit to the opening ref tag. Also be careful with spacing, the reference should immediately follow the full-stop (period) and must have a space afterwards. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ref 4 and 6 are the same book. Jack (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- So for the second appearance of the Garbutt & Unwin, 2007 reference you don't need to include the whole citation just the first ref tag with a forward slash at the end, i.e. <ref name="GarbuttUnwin2007" />. You also need to be careful with spacing after refs, I can see erroneous spaces/lack of spaces in the Description section, e.g. the final ref in the Description section has a space after the period then a ref, and there are other examples too. Otherwise the formatting looks great and I'll remove the cleanup tag after these issues have been addressed. Jack (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ref 4 and 6 are the same book. Jack (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- That's great. Now you can do the same for the Google Books references you've added. Just add the "name=" bit to the opening ref tag. Also be careful with spacing, the reference should immediately follow the full-stop (period) and must have a space afterwards. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I've removed the offending sentences. Can you see how I've formatted the first ADW reference <ref name="ADW">? This gives the reference a "name" so it can be used again without typing the whole thing out. So next time you want to reference that particular source just add <ref name="ADW" />, which you can see I've done for the second reference. You can now replace all the other duplicate references with this. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm very grateful for your edits but it would make it a lot easier if you took a little more care. When referencing please follow the structure I stated above (group references with the same source), if you need help with it just let me know. When writing about species they are referred to in the singular: its tail not their tail. Be careful with spacing before and after references. There is also a few sentences that you have copy-and-pasted twice into the article. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Sea Pigs edit
That site is not the original source of the picture used in Scotoplanes, and their comparison of its behavior to that of "slugs" is inaccurate, if only because slugs do not have legs.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Referencing and other information edit
For more information on how to reference see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. I would also recommend that on talk pages you reply to people on the same page the question was asked so as to keep the flow of the conversation together. So for example you would reply to this message on this page. Just place a colon before your reply to indent it for clarity. It may also be good to write a little information about yourself on your user page, about your interests etc. If you want any more information about anything, don't hesitate to ask! Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012 edit
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
"a google book" edit
Re this[1], I'll have you know that there is no such thing as "a google book". There is google books, which is an extremely useful tool in order to find books, but not everything found there is "a book" in any meaningful sense. The thing you found is just a dump of Wikipedia text. In other words, you pasted an url to a "book" by "eM Publications" which is basically a copy-paste dump of text on Wikipedia on some random date in history.
Also, in case you intend to cite a real book at some point in the future, please avoid {{linkrot}}. Pasting an bare url isn't the same as citing a book. --dab (𒁳) 11:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
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) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message edit
Hello, Matsuiny2004. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
| | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)