Rockerdude101

April 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from The Beatles. 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. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC) I am sorry I am new to editing wikipedia and did not know I had to ,I have since learned I need to and will do from now on ,go on the talk pages befre making an edit --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi there. I notice that you tend to use the edit summary "punctuation error" when adding or removing content. This can be seen as deceptive and as an attempt to "sneak" something by the community at large, and is best avoided. For more information on using edit summaries on Wikipedia, please see WP:ES. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)I am very sorry for this ,I will never do anything of this nature ever again I am very sorry --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Use of talkpage

When there is an open discussion about something on a talkpage, as at Talk:List of rock genres rather than repeating an edit, please engage in the discussion and attempt to form a consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC) I am sorry ,I have now started to use said talk page --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2012 (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 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) 22:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 22:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

hello ,this is my cooment I am sorry for not ddoing these things before hand ,I did not know I had to ,so I did not ,I was only rying to help Wikipedia increase the infomation it has on it --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You may not have known about some of these problems because you are inexperienced, and that's fine; we all have to learn. You clearly knew, however, that your addition of genres to musician's articles had nothing to do with "punctuation errors". Cresix (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I know ,I was being stupid and I know I should not have done that ,and I won't in the future --Rockerdude101 (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts

Hi. On the talkpage at Talk:List of rock genres you put your signature to a comment that agreed with you made from a separate account. Are you saying that this was also you? You should be aware that Wikipedia has rather strict rules on having multiple accounts and sockpuppetry.--SabreBD (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC) tha's because i was tryng to put it at the end od my comment ,so i jusy clicked on the little pen icon ,and i thought i took it away from there i tryed to cut and paste but i must of copyed or something ,i do not have 2 accounts ,without meaning to sound rude ,I'm not that stuid that I'd make a fake account then say that the fake account was infact me ,i wouldn't make a fake account anyway --Rockerdude101 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The writing style is almost identical (all lower case, a space before commas rather than after), the time the other account was created, the other account having only one edit on the very same talk page you commented on: that's a lot of evidence that Manda96 (talk · contribs) and you are identical. Rockerdude, you've already had some problem edits. Don't add to your questionable reputation by editing from multiple accounts, pretending that they are different editors. That's an especially egregious policy violation when it's done to try to persuade consensus in a particular direction. What you may not realize is that it's very easy for Wikipedia to determine if two accounts belong to the same person with a WP:CHECKUSER. And I won't hesitate to seek that information if I suspect you are using multiple accounts. Not only can that get you blocked, it can get you permanently banned from editing. Read WP:SOCK. Normally I would have moved on after pointing out your previous problem edits. Now I'm watching every edit you make, and every edit that may be you using a different username. I also flagged Manda96's edit as a WP:SPA edit to alert others to do the same. Cresix (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am very offened that you made this accusation, I have never made a fake account ,nor will I I see no point in makng fake accounts to edit in ,yes I admit that I've been in troblem of wikipedia before, however I know that I have done wrong, and also that I've made mistakes everyone does it we're only human, I will not and would not make another account just to agree with myself also misght I add that with the user name 'Manda96' would suggests that my name is Amanda(or something similar) and that I was born in 1996 ,niether of which is true --Rockerdude101 (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't push your luck, Rockerdude. You're already on shaky ground, and there are lots of us watching your edits. Cresix (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm pushing my luck --Rockerdude101 (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

By denying something that is patently obvious and that you know is the truth. If that's all you do, for now you'll be OK. If you again try to edit with a different account or make deceptive edits, I can most assuredly promise you, however, that you won't be editing much longer after that. Wikipedia tolerates bad edits made out of ignorance, and can even be forgiving once when an editor steps over the line of good faith edits. You've now stepped over that line twice. Do it again and you'll be out of here. Maybe you've learned from your mistakes; I don't know. But if you want to continue editing here, proceed with caution. Let me again (and for the last time) urge you to read WP:SOCK. Cresix (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I am reading now ,and I'm sorry if I have sounded aggresive, it wasn't mmy intent but I did not make that account but if I have or havent it doesn't matter ,I will never cross that line again --Rockerdude101 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pungle

The article Pungle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can't find evidence that this is a term in general use. It seems to be mainly associated with (and coined by) the one band, which does not have a Wikipedia article of its own.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 22:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC) the band do have a wiki[edia page ,on the French wikipedia ,also the tern pungle is used on the wikipedia page for Digital hardcore --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Better to place your arguments against deletion on the article's talk page. You can remove the PROD template if you explain why and improve the article. If you remove PROD, a WP:AfD template can be added, which you should not remove until after discussion is closed and consensus is to keep the article. Cresix (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

will do thank you --Rockerdude101 (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also note that if the PROD template is not removed in seven days, the article can be automatically deleted, although that would be a decision of an administrator. Cresix (talk) 23:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

okay thank you I'll try and do it tonight or tomorrow --Rockerdude101 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated reverting without discussion

Rockerdude, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is. Do you not read other editors' edit summaries? Do you not understand the concepts explained in WP:BRD and WP:Edit war? I have repeatedly explained why I removed "Pungle" from List of rock genres pending the outcome of possible deletion of the article, but you seem either completely oblivious to my comments, or you don't care. So, please, let me suggest that you read both of the blue links in this section, as well as the well-deserved warning below:

Your recent editing history at List of rock genres shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. 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. Cresix (talk) 00:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Pungle for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pungle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pungle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ... discospinster _talk 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

AGAIN, reverting without discussing

Regarding this edit, once again I am baffled by your behavior. I'm not sure if the problem is that you don't bother to read edit summaries, or whether you don't understand the edit summaries, or whether you don't understand repeated requests and warnings, or whether you simply don't care. In any event, I have given you a templated warning above about reverting without discussing, so you can consider this my final warning: If someone reverts your edit, rather than repeatedly restore it, discuss it on the talk page and wait for consensus before restoring. If you do this again, I won't be coming to this talk page about it. I'll go directly to WP:ANI. Cresix (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Well, might I say I have used the talk page, however not with tha, because it's quite obvisesly a sub-genre of rock music, and since what I was edititng was a list on the sub-genres of rock music, I never saw the harm, I re-edited it because I thought it must of been a mistake it getting deleted from the list in the first place, also I have used the talk pages, sevral times --Rockerdude101 (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The "harm" is that it is entirely inappropriate to repeatedly restore something that has been removed without discussing and obtaining consensus first. You've been told that again and again and again. Is there something you don't understand about that? And "using the talk page" for other matters does not mean you can do anything you please in this matter. I'm not going to repeat myself again and again to you. Wikipedia has rules and policies. You've violated several of them numerous times. You have been more than adequately warned. Do this again and you'll probably be blocked. Cresix (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

okie dokie--Rockerdude101 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)