User talk:Rogelioorrelana

October 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Eminem discography  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Nate Ruess. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Obie Trice may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox musical artist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Busta Rhymes may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox musical artist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nate Ruess. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Big L. Your edits have been or will be 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 your being blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at Tech N9ne. Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Saying "NO ONE SHALL CHANGE THE ASSOCIATE ACTS(((( I AM A PROFESSIONAL HIP HOP EXPERT AND SHALLL VIEW THIS DAILY!!!!" is ipso facto acting like you are the "owner" of an article. JesseRafe (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rogelio, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I have to agree with JesseRafe's comment. This is a community project, and community preference supersedes your proclaimed expertise. We only care what reliably published sources with established reputations for fact-checking have to say about any given matter. Your assertion in this venue does not constitute a "reliably published source". Additionally, you do not own any article, so grandiose proclamations like "NO ONE SHALL CHANGE THE ASSOCIATE ACTS(((( I AM A PROFESSIONAL HIP HOP EXPERT AND SHALLL VIEW THIS DAILY!!!!" are are no value here. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia puts verifying ahead of truth

Wikipedia could do with more experts, especially on the hip hop articles. I hope you don't get fed up and stop contributing. I can see you're frustrated that your expertise isn't sticking very well, that you get reverted sometimes, and get feedback on your editing that tastes as good as medicine.

A lot of experts working to improve Wikipedia miss the part about verifying. Any reader should be able to follow a path to verify a statement. Wikipedia likes formally cited sources, but edit summaries go a long way, too, and I see you've used them on some edits.

Imagine me as your perfect audience: my ignorance about hip hop is deep and wide, but I'm interested. I rarely talk with other people about hip hop, or seek out sources of information about it except for WP. I listen to hip hop about two hours a week, on a stream that doesn't announce artist names or song titles. I have about nine CDs that I could consult for myself to see if an edit were true or not.

I often have no clue as to whether an edit is bogus or not. Wikipedia gets vandalized by people adding false information or changing things that were true. So I sometimes revert an edit that has no explanation. The good contributions can be redone with a source, or an explanation of where the change is coming from. Those edits usually last for a long time. And when you provide the details of a good source, others can use it to learn more, or to add knowledge to other articles. Again, I hope you stick around as an expert.

Willondon (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello! Rogelioorrelana, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Bhootrina (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)