User talk:MetalS-W

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

January 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Eyesnore 02:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

- I didn't do anything wrong, I just undo some edits which an editor removed because they thinks they are not interesting! I'd like to know why exactly I got this warning message, which rule I broke? --MetalS-W (talk) 02:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • All your edits are to insert or re-insert links to MetalShockFinland, a non-notable metalzine--a pretty clear case of promotion. Your name is MetalS-W: close enough. This zine cannot be used on Wikipedia as a reliable source, and reviews of albums in it cannot be linked in article space: it is not a reliable source per WP:RSW. As for reporting to an admin--I am an admin, and will block you if this persists. I'd rather not, but if I have to I will. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

-As a user in wikipedia I've found this message aggressive, you are an admin, you should know attacking to the other users is not allowed! I only asked the reason and I deserve respect!! BTW according to wp:sr rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, so if you are right, why not that user and you didn't start discussing about those info in TALK section? why it was urgent to send warning message to me first? And also according to wp:sr I should get warning after 3 times doing undo!! --MetalS-W (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

-Also Metal is what I believe, S is first of my name, and W is first of my family. So pls don't judge easily about my name here! --MetalS-W (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Respect is earned. Good faith is a given, but it's been made clear to you that your edits are problematic. BTW, I find your double exclamation point aggressive. I wasn't attacking you. Drmies (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

--I felt that way, but I'm sorry if I made you feeling that. All I want is to discuss to solve that problem. I would be grateful if that user started a discuss in Talk section. Anyway I know the rules and I know my rights, I still believe some of those info should not be removed! --MetalS-W (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Metal, no problem, no hard feelings. Listen, I posted some more at Talk:Stalingrad (Accept album), and just now I thought of something else. When Wikipedia editors try to assess if a source is notable (because someone asks on a board like WP:RSN), they look at a few things and one of them is a kind of editorial statement. I noticed that MSF doesn't have one. Such a statement would say something about the role of the editor(s), about quality assessment and independence from (for instance) the advertisers, and about how material is evaluated and assessed (that is, they like to see that there is a filter, that material is checked and double-checked before it is posted). Those sorts of things are essential to guarantee the kind of objectivity that one would look for. And if the zine plays its cards right, at some point they'll get written up in another magazine, or a news paper, as a reliable player in the field--et cetera. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, if you're interested, ask Blackmetalbaz (talk · contribs). He knows his shit, and he's been doing it here for quite some time. He'll tell you what he would be looking for if the question is whether something is reliable, notable, etc. Tell you what, ask him for a second opinion on the reviews that were removed. Usually, in these matters, if Baz says yes, I defer to him. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
    • No but thank you. Honestly I'm too much busy, cannot spend more time than this on wikipedia.--MetalS-W (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)