Nickelbackrules1518

I rock, I get the job done.

NIckelback my favorite band.

Welcome!

Hello, Nickelbackrules1518, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Citing sources

Use references. This is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information.Moxy (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Example.Ryan Peake Nickelback.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Example.Ryan Peake Nickelback.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Eeekster (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Example.chad.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Example.chad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Please do not continue to upload files missing information on their copyright status, as you did with File:Example.chad.jpg. Note that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and that the copyright status of all media files uploaded to Wikipedia must be verifiable by others. If you are unsure of the correct copyright template, please refer to the list of image copyright tags. If you would like to experiment with uploading files, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Example.chadkoreger.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Example.chadkoreger.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection with this edit. 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. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection with this edit, 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. Wikipedian2 (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change genres without a source or discussion. Thank you. --John of Lancaster (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Xbox 360, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Rare Ltd.

Please do not remove properly cited content from the article Rare Ltd. without a source or discussion. Thank you. Niwi3 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How You Remind Me

Please, do not add false information as you did on "How You Remind Me" and List of Canadian number-one singles of 2001–07. As I said in the edit summary, the official chart site do not provide any Canadian chart position for this single, and the link you added is just a general history of the band that does not support your claim ("After a handful of singles failed to gain much traction in Canada, "How You Remind Me" caught hold in 2001, eventually topping the charts in several countries." [not in Canada]). Stop to add this, as this looks like vandalism. The next time, I will be forced to report it to administrators for sanctions. Thank you. Regards, --Europe22 (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Img 1 th.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Img 1 th.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:ImagesCAEV312L.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ImagesCAEV312L.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Show Preview

I noticed that you just made tons of edits to the Nickelback page, but the end result was just a few pictures. Use the Show Preview button to make sure that your additions came out the right way. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nickelback

So, as I keep on explaining on the edit summaries, on wikipedia, albums aren't listed in the discography section until they at least have a name. Please look through WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, stop doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Third reminder, stop doing this. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning

pls be aware of our 3 revert policy See: WP:3RR.Moxy (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it really worth getting blocked over a red link that is not even the proper title? Not sure if you have seen WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL but your fighting a losing battle.Moxy (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing User Pages

Do no use user talk pages, like you did here, to argue over which band is better, or essentially just start trouble with other users. That's now what user talk pages are for. Judging by how many time you've been reminded of such things, you should know that by now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

And please don't immediately delete this message when you see it. Oftentimes, whenever I see criticism on this page, you quickly delete it, then go straight back to the behavior that got you those warnings in the first place. Think about what you're doing wrong, and think about how you can actually help Wikipedia by following the guidelines instead of doing your own thing, thinking that you know everything. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 19:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

lets do a proper welcome

We really do appreciate all the work you have been doing for NB article -- just wanted to mention that this is an encyclopedia, so remember to include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information.

You many find Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Help a page that is very useful in helping you understand things around here and were to find links to policies etc... I really do like the fact that you have taken up the huge task of fixing up NB and if you have any questions pls just ask me.....we need all the help we can get here on Wiki and i hope your encounters with editors so far has not turned you off talking and helping.Moxy (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Nickelback

I noticed what you have been doing. This is not about who is bigger fan. It is about what is important and needed for Wikipedia. So, please if you have good conscious of mind, DON'T claim ownership of something that isn't yours. Otherwise you are jeopardizing your further work here in Wikipedia. Also it would be more polite if you leave your signature when you type personal message. I ask for your good reason. Wikipedia needs tightened structured and better articles. Nickelback is not a fan page or a base work for a fan, who only wants to make something of it that only pleases himself. You see, what we do - it's up there for other people to read. We need to make it the best. Otherwise it might not matter.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you dont care ....

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Nickelbackrules1518 and Nickelback.Moxy (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Nickleback. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Mrrightguy10 (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring at Nickelback

Hello Nickelbackrules1518. Please see WP:AN3#User:Nickelbackrules1518 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

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 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Nickelback. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

User:RA0808 and Nickelback

Ok I told Sergecross73 and Moxy that I will delete the music style section and so I did at the Nickelback page. Then, this guy name RA0808 reverted back to the version that is not specific and that Moxy created and I got blocked. How on earth did this happened? Anyways, Wikipedia is for people to read specific articles and the Nickelback Wikipedia is not specific and is fake, because Nickelback got their mainstream in 2001. Lastly, please I'm blocked but change the Nickelback page the way I had it when i deleted the Music Style section. Thanks for your occupation.

Yes, you said you'd change the music style section, but that's not enough. Virtually all of your contributions to the Nickelback article are not appropriate or necessary for wikipedia. That's why your work was, and will continue to be, undone, if you don't change your ways. Please take the time to read all of the things we've been telling you. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 23:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the block notice. You got blocked for edit warring. If you don't know what it means, then the link in the notice will tell you. Besides, you still have the "you don't know anything, I'll do all of the editing" attitude, which is unacceptable. Now is the time to be more open to what others say to you. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me TheStickMan and SergeCross73 what things did I did wrong on the Nickelback page because the only thing I did wrong was the Music Style and please bring the one that I edited with out the Music Style, also you guys have the FALSE information because Nickelback mainstream was in 2001 not 2003, please bring it back without the music style because then people are gonna laugh at the Wikipedia because of it's FALSE information. Anyways thanks and make sure to bring it back with out the "music style". Also, when you guys said my work is undone I want to clear that up because I only join Wikipedia to make the Nickelback page with more information and more specific and I knew the "Music Style" was wrong but anything else than that was not. The last Nickelback page I edited was PERFECT, but you guys messed it up with the one Moxy created which sounds personally fake, unreal, and FALSE because Nickelback got their Mainstream in 2001 not 2003 and mines had more information such as the Riaa for the albums and the recognition which the facts were real. Please bring the last one I edited back. Thanks.

Perfect, huh? If you want to know what you are doing wrong, all you have to do is talk about it in the Nickelback talk page, or read the edit summaries of the other users who edited the page. But to list some (not all) of the problems, the recognition section was redundant (essentially the same thing as reception), the organization of the band's history by albums was too wordy (the whole early/mainstream/recent structure is much cleaner), and you kept on adding (and linking) the untitled new album, which fails WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. (Please read that.) And getting #1 singles on the Mainstream chart in 2001 does not mean mainstream success. You can ask on the Nickelback talk page for more info when you get unblocked. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok number 1 Nickelback did turned mainstream in 2001 you can ask any Nickelback fan out there, so your saying "How You Remind Me" was early years and it wasn't a big single? Number 2, the recognition was to show how Nickelback is recognize and the critical reception is how Nickelback are being criticized (BIG different you know). Number 3, mainstream success is much lazier, remember if you want to hire for a job they are gonna pick the workers who are not lazy! Number 3, the Untitled album, every band has that, it is to show a new album is coming out and TBA means "To be Announced". Number 4, are you really a Nickelback fan, because if you were you wouldn't change it. Number 5, I'm not being mean or anything but do you have a LIFE! I mean god, I want Wikipedia to be specific with good information, but you are just messing it up, and if you really did had a LIFE you would just end it and re-edit the Nickelback page just the way I had it when I last edit it. You know I'm fighting for my rights and to change Wikipedia and to make it a better place. So if I were you I would change it please!

Being a fan of Nickelback has nothing to do with this. It's about how to make a good Wikipedia article. Someone who knew nothing about Nickelback but everything about editing would do a better job with the article than someone who knew everything about Nickelback but nothing about editing. Separate sections for each album was too cluttered, and the sections were too small to warrant their existence. So, for the sake of cleanliness, they were merged. This is not laziness. And "every" band has that on the page? Sure they do... when there's a title. And it's linked when there's a track list for it. And if you read your recognition section, you would just see how it also talks about how people received the band, just like the reception section (which includes positive and negative criticism). Really, ditch the whole "you have no life and you don't know what you're doing" thing. I know what I'm doing. It's you, with your inexperience, who doesn't know what he's doing, even when you had chances to learn. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok Number 1, Why should you edit if you don't know anything about the band? Number 2, I'm just mad about the the wrong info because Nickelback had their mainstream success in 2001, hey you can change it can you? Number 3, I suggest bringing the Recognition back. Lastly, The pictures back and the Riaa certifications. Don't worry tomorrow I will change it and I'll bet you, you will like it.

You don't know anything about an article's subject to improve the article, but not knowing about an article's subject does have its limitations (Like the whole mainstream success thing). Bring it up in the Nickelback talk page. And taking a gung-ho I'll-do-as-I-please-and-you-will-like-it attitude will get you another, longer block, and will get you nowhere. Stop thinking that you're right all of the time and discuss things. You know those two examples I mentioned who knew all about one thing but nothing about the other? Them working together would be the best case scenario. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok tomorrow I'm gonna edit it and talk about it in the Nickelback page to the people who likes it. Oh and tomorrow don't erase my Nickelback page when I edit it. Ok i'll edit it, I will go to the Nickelback talk page and report it and if people say is ok, LEAVE IT THERE! You see we can work together but is going to be "give and take" so i'll put the Riaa in the albums and the recognition and we'll leave the big paragraphs that you did of the mainstream success but I'll change it a little.

No, you will not edit it first. You will talk about it. You first need to explain to others why you think your version is better. Listen to what they have to say, and think about it. Otherwise, a whole new edit war will kick off, and I'm certain that you will get another block. And please, sign your comments. You should know how to do that by now. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 11:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is, you need to take the time to learn the rules and policies of wikipedia, "Nickelbackrules". Like how you can't just tell people to "leave it there". And that, when there's disagreement, you're supposed to discuss it out and find a consensus or agreement, not just keep reverting it to what you want. And we're trying to help, but instead, you keep on ignoring what you're told. For example, like I've said many times, don't add an untitled album to the discography. Policy says don't add articles without a name, release date or article. If you're unhappy with this, perhaps you should go start your own Nickelback fansite or blog or something... Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ok thanks guys, I will do what you guys are telling me ok, so I'll first go and tell people what I'm gonna do and if they accept it, then we can leave it there. User talk:Nickelbackrules1518 15:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, please use edit summaries to explain what you are doing. You're not required to do so every time you edit, but in most cases, it's helpful to know your thoughts. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 02:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

More troubles with editing at Nickelback

So, let's recap. You directly told me that you would discuss future changes to the article. (Your exact quote from this talk page is "I'll first go and tell people what I'm gonna do and if they accept it, then we can leave it there.") Then, as soon as you are unblocked, you go and make a lot of the same edits that everyone has been telling you not to, and do so without a single comment on the article talk page or in any of your numerous edit summaries. And then you're confused why all your work was undone again?? Did you forget all of these conversation, by us and you, the second you were unblocked? Sergecross73 msg me 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where is the Nickelback Talk page if you can give me a link i'll do what you guys told me to do. User:Nickelbackrules1518

So, I see you've found the "Discussion" page for Nickelback. However, I can see you still don't quite have a grasp on how they work. They're not an area where you state your intentions, and then you've got a pass to do whatever you want. You're supposed to try to come to a consensus, or an agreement. You did the opposite. For example, at least 2 people told you not to make a "New album 2011-present" section, and yet you did it anyways.

I can't stress enough that you need to work with people, not against them. If you keep pushing against everyone else, your work is just going to be continue to be undone. (You've made such a scene with all of your editing lately that there's no way your edits are going to go unnoticed.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

As per your request

Talk:Nickelback

Help:Using talk pages - Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Wikipedia:Etiquette Where to find talk pages

The discussion tab

When viewing an article (or any other non-talk page), a link to the corresponding talk page appears on the "discussion" tab at the top of the page. Click this tab to switch to the talk page; you can then view the talk page and its history, and edit it if you want to add a question or comment.

Video on how to use a talk page, 2m 30s (8 MB)

To go back to the article page from its talk page, use the leftmost tab at the top of the page, labeled "article". For pages other than articles, this tab may say something different, like "user page" or "project page". .........
Moxy (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Over 3 reverts again..

pls see Talk:Nickelback#On going problems ..this would be the last warning ..i dont want to see you banned ..pls come to talk page and see the problems with your text.Moxy (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Nickelbacklive.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Nickelbacklive.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:250pxnickelbackbfs.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:250pxnickelbackbfs.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:12staind.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:12staind.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Picklesatwar

Other users and I have a strong reason to believe that you are the user Picklesatwar. So I'll give you a warning: Stop now. If not, there will be consequences. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickelbackrules1518. Thank you. (Note that this is NOT something to ignore.) TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 23:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'M NOT Picklesatwar PLEASE UNBLOCK ME

OK IM NOT THIS DUDE, PLEASE I SWEAR THIS IS SOME MISTAKE I'M NOT THIS GUY, HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO SAY IT. IM NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!! PLEASE TRUST ME IF I HAD IT TO DO AN EDIT, ILL WOULD NOT CREATE ANOTHER ACCOUNT! THAT'S CALLED PUSSY!

Come on now, you made it completely obvious. You edited the exact same page {Nickelback) in the exact same way (No edit summaries or discussion of changes on discussion pages, continually taking like 5 edits to make changes most people would make in one or two, etc.) Beyond that, an admin did an IP check type thing to confirm it. You're not fooling anyone. Sergecross73 msg me 00:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather than trying to bicker with me about if I'm a fan, why don't you discuss something of substance, like all the issues brought up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nickelback#On_going_problems and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nickelback#Section_titles. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Sum+41.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Sum+41.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kollision (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for the following: Immediately upon release of your recent block, you continued with the same edits that got you in trouble at Nickelback, including for confirmed sock puppetry. If you continue edit warring rather than using other means of dispute resolution, the blocks will keep escalating in length.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete My Account

Please delete my account, I actually wanted to stay but if this is all Wikipedia has (FAKE INFORMATION OF COURSE), then delete my account. Anyways my last words are "NICKELBACK DIDN'T GOT THEIR MAINSTREAM SUCCESS IN 2003! GOD! HOW MANY TIMES I GOT TO TELL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!! Anyways Goodbye. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

All you had to do was prove it in a civil discussion. Yet you failed at doing that. I'll also take the time to tell you that it's impossible to delete your account. The next best thing, since you don't seem to want to come back, is retiring. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure why you can't say such things, or provide back up reasoning, on the Nickelback discussion page like we asked. Over and over again. It's your own fault you never make any progress; it's because you refuse to discuss things out. Sergecross73 msg me 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I TRY OK! Everytime when I'm about to discuss something, you always STOP ME! So do us all a favor and SHUT UP! Lastly, it would help if you put Rise of fame and Mainstream Success 2000-2007, and then put Recent years 2008-present. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

I always stop you because you always go and make the same old changes without explaining yourself. You never discuss your changes or even include edit summaries. (Do you even know what an edit summary is?) Titles like the one you just said doesn' make sense if you think about it. It infers that they're no longer Mainstream Sucess anymore, which really isn't true...Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea but look at your titles

• Formative years 1995-1999 (all good.)
• Early releases 2000-2002 (so your saying that How You Remind Me wasn't big and so as Silver Side up.
• Mainstream success 2003-2007 (Nickelback didn't go to mainstream in 2003 and how?)
• Recent years 2008-present (all good.)

Oh and if my means that Nickelback stopped going to the Mainstream, then that's suppose to me that your's Nickelback stopped going to mainstream. You can see here Rise of fame and Mainstream success 2000-2007 and your's mainstream success 2003-2007. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

See, this is the type of thing you should have been doing on Nickelback's discussion page. It's a shame you've waited so long. In fact, if you bothered to look at the discussion page, you'd see that I've already mentioned that you had a point when you said they became mainstream in 2001. But you didn't even bother to read it. I admit, it could be changed, but I'm saying what you kept on changing it to was worse in a number of ways. I guess you'd have to read it to understand.

It's a shame you just deleted away Stick Man's advice, you could really gain a lot from it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I don't care about the StickMan, I only talk to one person at a time, anyways I wanted to go to the Nickelback's discussion page but it was hard to find and you didn't want to work together remember when I said, "With my knowledge of Nickelback information and your awesome editing, we can help it make it better", but you wanted me to do it all by my own. So I didn't bothered. Anyways I guessed you should change it to

• Formative years (1995-1999, all good and correct information.)
• Rise of fame and mainstream success (2000-2007, all good and correct information and timeline.)
• Recent years (2008-present, all good and correct information.)

User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk) Oh and you should probably check WP:RS. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

1. The discussion page being hard to find is the worst excuse ever. We've given you direct links to the discussion. If you can find the article, you can find the discussion page for the article. If you can't handle that, you probably can't handle editing in general.
2. No one ever wanted you to do it all on your own. Most people would probably prefer if you left the article alone before you do it all on your own. We wanted you to talk things out.
3. What makes you think I'm going to make the edits for you when you've been nothing but difficult?
4. Do you even know what WP:RS is? The fact you are suggesting it for me makes me think that you don't... Sergecross73 msg me 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So your saying that you can't do the edit for me because I been difficult! I'm sorry if I had been, but all I want is to have the Nickelback wikipedia with the correct information. Oh and you should never judge difficulty and editing because is all about have the correct information. It's like saying just because this dog behave bad that means he gets no food. (That's just messed up.) User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

But when changes as major as the ones you made get challenged, you discuss with other editors and reach a consensus. At that point, the "it's-the-correct-information" excuse may no longer apply. Ever heard of fancruft? That's another way of saying "too much information" here. Some info you have is simply un-encyclopedic or gives too much detail about the band. And with stuff like when a band's mainstream success began, that's something you need to discuss. No matter how clear it may seem to you, an obvious fan of Nickelback, there's no way someone can be 100% sure about that. Ignoring what other users say is just unacceptable, even when adding "correct" info. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Right to vanish

Wikipedia:Right to vanish - Vanishing is the act of dissociating the identity of a user account from the identity of its owner. It does not imply the dissociation of the account from the edits made from that account. With a very few exceptions, all edits made to Wikipedia will remain part of the database indefinitely even if the editor chooses to "vanish".Moxy (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I would love to do that but only if you change the Nickelback page so it will be better and it will be like

• Formative years (1995-1999)
• Rise of fame and mainstream success (2000-2007)
• Recent years (2008-present)

Sergecross said it was ok but he didn't want to do the edit for me because he said I was being "difficult" to him, so I guessed you can do it for me. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

At no point did I say it was okay. You're just interpreting what you want to... All I said is that it's good that you're finally discussing things, and that they were mainstream before 2003. No other conclusions were made. Pretty sure Moxy isn't falling for your tricks...it's obvious you're just trying to pull strings while you're blocked... Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I always keep telling you, I'm not doing nothing bad, I just want the Nickelback wikipedia to be good with the right information. Also, to tell you the truth I'm blocked because I was fighting for the right things. The only reason people join wikipedia is to edit a wikipedia page if it has a wrong information. I know is hard to do the edit I told you, because the way I acted but you got to believe me that was the past. Please this is not about winning or losing, this is about doing the best for this Nickelback page, just think about it for a moment........ User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

If at any time you believe your being treated un-fairly ........Dispute resolution requests details the various different methods used in dispute resolutions.Moxy (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Moxy, it's just I'm trying to help him listen but he just won't understand. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

No one is treating you unfairly. Give me a break. For weeks you've been edit warring, breaking WP:3RR, breaking WP:sockpuppet, and then breaking 3RR with your sockpuppet, "Pickleatwar". This is getting ridiculous. I'm done arguing with you. I'll talk to you when you're ready to contribute the right way and discuss things on Nickelback's article talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My reason for linking the above is that it might be a good way of getting a third/fourth... opinion here - Thus Nickelbackrules1518 may be told by outside editors what the problems are. Because at this point I don't believe what I or you (Sergecross73) say will have any barring on the outcome of his future actions. Perhaps some un-involved editors will be able to communicate better then we have. I do believe that Nickelbackrules1518 is trying to help the article - it's just not being done properly. Moxy (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sergecross you are thinking of the past too much like I said before that's the past, this is now. You are probably not thinking straight. Ok let me ask you one simple question, what do you care more of, me getting blocked or having the Nickelback wikipedia with the right information? User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

If you think I hate you then your wrong! I don't hate anyone, YES I would be very UPSET about you, but I don't hate you, listen "hate" is a very strong word for possible actions. Because you are probably thinking "This guy hates me, no way I'm not gonna do this edit for him." When you should probably say "umm ok so this guy has been difficult for me over the past days, but this dude is telling the truth about the Nickelback wikipedia it does has the wrong information and as a wikipedia I got to help it." You see now is your turn to try it out LOL. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

For your information, you're putting words into his mouth. He never said or implied anything about hate. He only said that you were being difficult. And like I said above, there are some cases where even adding the correct information is not the right decision. I suggest you read it, and not delete it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

And the whole "thinking about the past" thing? Maybe if you actually changed your ways, we would stop going over your past mistakes and broken promises. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 20:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You know StickMan, I said if he thinks he hates me, you never know if he does on his mind, I just tried to show him something but if he doesn't hate me then he should ignore that post. Anyways, I don't want you to post a comment on my page, due to the things you say doesn't really appeal to me. So if I were you I wouldn't post another comment down here again. Anyways, I don't hate you my friend, it's just I don't like the things your saying. I'm very sorry if I'm acting like a jerk. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

I'm calling things like I see them, and there isn't really any reason to order me to stop or mildly threaten me ("So if I were you...") just because you don't like what you're seeing. Sometimes, you need to see what you don't want to see and hear what you don't want to hear. However, if you really want me to stop commenting here, then I'll respect your wish. This is my last comment here... until another issue arises. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Well said. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

TheStickMan hey there is another issue and it is that what happened to the Nickelback picture I uploaded and put it on the Nickelback wikipedia page? User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

Up in your talk page, there's a section titled "License tagging for File:Nickelbacklive.jpg". In the future, don't ignore these messages so that you can properly upload pictures in the future. On another note, please don't use my sig in your comments. It's not a big deal, but if you have something to say, I'll see it. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

But could I bring the same image back with another name. Oh and if I were you, I would upload a Nickelback live image and put it there. I mean you are trying to help the wikipedia? And I can't do it all by my own. Also, I'm blocked until next week. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

You could bring it back with the same name, as long as you do all the stuff required of you. I'll be honest with you: I'm just too lazy to upload a picture, since I've done that exactly once, and I didn't like the whole process. But this is a chance for you to learn how to appropriately upload an image. I know I'm passing the buck here, and I apologize. If I sound like a jerk, I apologize for that, too. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 22:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's ok somebody already uploaded a picture to it. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

Wait so can you edit the Nickelback Wikipedia so it can be with the right information. Because Nickelback didn't got their mainstream success in 2003, they got it in 2001. Well like I said to Sergecross.

• Formative years (1995-1999)
• Rise of fame and mainstream success (2000-2007)
• Recent years (2008-present) User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

A reminder to come to consensus...

So I believe you're done with your block in like a day? I just wanted to remind you that once you're unblocked, please do not go back to edit warring on the page. BEFORE you change the article, discuss it on the Nickelback article page. Don't just say "I'm gonna change the article now!". Actually discuss the changes you want to make, and make sure people agree with you before you do it. Just so you can't claim ignorance, while I do believe they broke into mainstream earlier than 2003, I do not agree with the way you have suggested breaking up the sections just above. Do not change this until an agreement has been made.

You've made quite a scene with all the policies you've broken recently, so it's not like people aren't going to notice your changes if you just go and do whatever you want like you typically do. You've brought too much attention to yourself. If you don't follow this advice, your work will likely be undone like in the past. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I don't know anything about Nickelback's mainstream success, but if you really believe that it starts in 2000, then you should go onto the Nickelback talk page and show your reasoning/proof. Then you should listen to other users' reasoning/proof. From there, everyone should come to a consensus. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 15:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I will go to the Nickelback talk page once I get unblocked. Also, I could prove that Nickelback got their fame in 2000 and their mainstream success in 2001. Thanks. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

Oh and once I get unblocked, I'm going to give reasons on the talk page of why should I edit the "critical reception" on the Nickelback wikipedia. User:Nickelbackrules1518 (talk)

User:NickelbackSucks1518

This is you? You do know that you are unblocked... right? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for continuing to create and use sock accounts for disruptive purposes. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait why am I blocked?

Ok why am I blocked I swear I didn't did nothing I just went to the Nickelback discussion and talked about if i can do an edit. But I didn't did the edit.

After having had your User:NickelbackSucks1518 account closed down and having been told you can continue to use this, your main account, you created a new sock and used it continue your disruption. If you wish to use any account now, you must make a commitment here to stop abusing multiple accounts and you must convince an unblocking admin that you will stick to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I did create another account a while ago but I forgot about it and I wanted to erase it but I found out you couldn't delete your account in wikipedia. But I never did an edit with the other account, this is a mistake????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 June 2011

I;m very confused???? I didn't did nothing wrong????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelbackrules1518 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 June 2011

You know exactly what you did, but for any admins considering unblocking, please see the edits made by NickelbackSucks1519 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

WAIT this is a mistake I'm not Nickelbacksucks1518. OH MY GOD I'm very confused here????

PEOPLE CHECK THE IP ADRESS IM SURE THAT IS NOT ME????? PLEASE CHECK IT THAT IS NOT ME????? I SWEAR TO GOD????

Somebody created a fake account about me so I can get block but I'm serious that is not me!!!!!!!

Sergecross and The Stick Man that guy, is not me please help?????? PLEASE THAT IS NOT ME???? PLEASE HELP, HELP, HELP.

You said the same thing about PicklesatWar, your last sock puppet. I don't believe you. It's clear that you're not interested in actually contributing, every time you're blocked you just go and do something else that you know you shouldn't do. You deserve this, in my opinion... Sergecross73 msg me 01:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On picklesatwar that was me because you guys checked the IP!!! But seriously checked the IP between these 2 accounts, I'm sure that is not me????

Also, when this account was made I think, wasn't I autoblock which means I couldn't created another account.

I'm just saying PLEASE CHECK THE IP!!!!! PLEASE I'M NOT HIM!!!!

Conveniently, the sock puppet's first post was after you were unblocked. Please, just stop. Sergecross73 msg me 01:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage access revoked here too. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, in light of that topic that was just deleted here, I'd like to express some doubt about NickelbackSucks being Nickelbackrules' sockpuppet that I've been holding back for a while. Is it too late to reverse this situation in any way? TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 01:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but who's to say that guy wasn't just Nickelback rules pretending to be someone else so he can get his account back though? >_> Sergecross73 msg me 02:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I have three reasons to think that. 1. The whole "NickelbackSucks" thing was so unbelievably stupid, I don't think he really did that. 2. Looking at his edits, Dantherocker and his socks mostly do outright vandalism, as opposed to Nickelbackrules' disruptive yet good faith edits. 3. ... OK, this might be a stretch, but... both NickelbackSucks accounts didn't type like Nickelbackrules. The "Sucks" typing was a bit too clear. That's just something off I noticed. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 16:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This guy is not Nickelbacksucks1518. The IP adresses don't match. - Another n00b (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I can verify this. He was framed by User:Dantherocker1 in an elaborate revenge scheme. ImGladMyIPAddressChangesHourly (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

{{help|See above.}}

If you would like to appeal your block, you can use the {{unblock}} template, appeal to the unblock ticket request system, or apply to be unblocked by the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm wondering how non-Check Users can know what the IP addresses are. Not that that's proof of anything. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)