User talk:Louis Taylor

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Louis Taylor, 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! — ξ^xplicit 18:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, 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 text 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.Candyo32 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Im aware of what admins can do, I see to many vandals and I want to stop them.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Louis Taylor

Hi Louis Taylor. I noticed you created a Requests for Adminship page some time ago; I was wondering as to what the status of that request might be. I think it's fair to warn you that new users are rarely successful at RfA and that the Wikipedia editing community sets very high standards for editors running for adminship. That being said, I strongly urge you to read WP:GRFA, User:Davidwr/Administration is not for new users, and WP:NOTNOW, and ask you to reconsider whether you really do wish to go through with your candidacy. If you are still intent on running for adminship with that RfA, please do let me know; otherwise, I'll go ahead and delete it for you in about a week or so from today. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Im still up for it, it doesnt seem that bad, if I dont like it then so be it.--Louis Taylor (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, provided that you have thoroughly read, and fully understood the risks/high possibility of failure, I will transclude (aka submit your RfA for formal review) your RfA. Are you absolutely sure you wish to continue? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, its not like its gonna mess my life up.--Louis Taylor (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, if you're absolutely sure that's what you want. You will be able to see it at WP:RFA#Louis Taylor. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hi Louis, I hate to make it sound like we're stretching the same point out here. But you're chances of RFA success are almost non existent at this point in time. I've failed Two RFA's and have about 4000 more edits then you do. You need sufficient edits to prove you can handle the tools trustfully, and 300 or so edits just isn't enough. I'd highly suggest just work on being a good editor for a while, this'll be closed by WP:NOTNOW in no time. Regards,--SKATER ^Speak. 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Editing isnt that hard, and does my number of edits matter? Ive done good stuff that all I need isnt it?--Louis Taylor (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The technical answer is no, your edits don't matter that much. They really just show the amount of time you've been around here, the more time you've been around here, the more familiar you are with guideline and policy. Admins need to have a very comprehensive understanding to how things work around here, which with your amount of edits I'm really not sure you do.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hey. Well done for trying. I just thought I'd let you know, if you didn;t already, what admistrators do so you'll have a better idea of qwhat to expect in the future. They can :
  • Block and unbklock registered editors and IP addresses from editing Wikipedia
  • Protect and unprotect and unprotect pages in cases of vandalism or a serious dispute
  • Delete and undelete almost any page on Wikipedia by speedy, proposed or nominations for deletion.
  • Grant certain rights like rollback and autoreviewer to trusted editors
  • Revert vandalism using rollback
  • Edit full-protected pages, including the Main Page and pages transcluded onto it

there are a few other boring and technical things, but those are the most common admin actions. You can read WP:ADMIN to get a better idea. You're welcome to get in touch if you need a hand. I have a failed RfA of my own and I'd been on here for 9 months with about 8000 edits- RfA isn't easy, but it's not supposed to be because it's very difficult to get rid of bad administrators,. so the community needs to know it can trust you. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying

If you wish to try again later, the information at User:Dlohcierekim/On RfA may prove useful. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Louis do u go to city of london school i know ur sister choloe???Parsi dude (talk)parsidude I'm an only child and no I

April 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Rated R (Rihanna album). Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

How do you do a edit summary? --Louis Taylor (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the box that you used to edit, theirs a smaller one to add in the edit summary.--SKATER ^Speak. 23:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just noticed, thanks.--Louis Taylor (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Genres

Ive made my case on the talk pages for Love Hate and Love vs. Money. You are speculating w/these genres that arent present on the album, if only incorporating some elements of them. It is unreasonable to make the edits you are making after the time that has passed since our discussions on the talk pages for the articles. Dan56 (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Tupac Shakur. When removing text, 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 text 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. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

An origin is were your born, his mother or family maybe from that place does'nt mean he's originated from there, maybe replace origin with decentdant.--Louis Taylor (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Michael Jackson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Go to the Talk page, please, but stop edit-warrring otherwise I will protect this article against all edits, including yours. Rodhullandemu 02:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not vandalizing you idiot, your the one vandalizing.--Louis Taylor (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war brewing at Michael Jackson

Given the tone of your edit summaries, and the fact that you have repeatedly reverted to your preferred version, it appears you are approaching an edit war at the Michael Jackson article. Please stop before you violate the three revert rule or otherwise make more problems. Please instead use the article's talk page to discuss your proposed edits. Start a civil discussion over what you wish to change, explain why you wish to, and politely invite those editors who disagree with you to talk it out. After the discussion has reached a concensus, then go back and do what everyone agrees on. --Jayron32 02:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Im simpy correcting cetain idiots who seem to not realize He did do intruments, and why are you going to me not the real vandals? Or simply the vandals would stop re-editing my corrections I'm not backing down until the page gets justice.--Louis Taylor (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"Justice" is irrelevant here. What matters are reliable sources. However, even if Jackson is documented as playing "bongos" on any particular track does NOT make that relevant to his overall musical career. Some perspective, please. Rodhullandemu 02:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you got any of his albums?

I have all

Thriller: Mj was listed as drums.

Blood on the dance floor: Listed as guitarist.

Invincible: noted at various intruments.

The proof is in the leaflets, buy them and check them yourself if you don't believe me!--Louis Taylor (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I highly recommend that you change your approach here. It isn't a "justice" issue and it isn't about "winning" or "being right" or setting yourself in opposition to others. As I recommended above, start a discussion at the article talk page, and start from a position of working with other people to improve the article, and also try to understand others perspectives and why they disagree with you. Keep an open mind, and work to establish consensus by working together, not in opposition. Also understand that being true is not the only consideration for editing articles. Articles are supposed to be well written and not just collections of facts; there can be stylisitic reasons why some information is presented in a certain way. In other words, there may be a way to include the information you want to include, but the way you are adding it doesn't "work" in the article per se. Again, if you approach this from a point of view of working with other editors, there may be a way to work this out so everyone can be happy. But repeatedly reverting to the same thing is never helpful. Try to work it out, keep a cool head, and don't look at it as a battle. --Jayron32 03:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I did add something to the talk page. And its a good addition plus it does'nt give him justice Michael played numorous intruments and people slag him of alot saying he did'nt and wikipedia is the biggest internet encyclopedia on the web so its inportant to be accurate.--Louis Taylor (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Broken (McLean song)

Pleae, take a look at WP:NSONGS. The page Broken (McLean song) doesn't assert notability, specially the way you edited it, which makes the infobox be incorrectly displayed, whereas there was no valid content on the page. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Any source for that #110 in the UK charts? If not, I will have to redirect the page again, per WP:V. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 01:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It says on the McLean.

And if you want me to remove that reference I will, no need to redirect it. --Louis Taylor (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but note that the information in McLean is unsourced too. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Soo shall I remove the refernce?--Louis Taylor (talk) 03:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But which reference are you talking about? There is none at Broken (McLean song). Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 04:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The thingy I added about the chart success--Louis Taylor (talk) 04:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No need to do that, I wil redirect the page again. the only assertion of notability (the chart position) is unsourced, and consequently, invalid. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 19:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Invincible (Michael Jackson album), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend that you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If you heard the album and are a big fan of music you would agree with me. --Louis Taylor (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That dosen't matter, whether we agree with you or not Wikipedia runs on Reliable Sources from professional music reviews, not the listeners opinion.--SKATER ^Hmm? 14:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes but the people that read the article would'nt care if its slightly not what the critics say.--Louis Taylor (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, your reply describes personal WP:POV, and perhaps even a bit of original research. I would suggest reading WP:GWARRIOR to get a better understanding of why you were tagged, and what's expected of your editing behaviour. This was not a one-off edit... I am very familiar with your user name, and tagged you in part because I've witnessed an unfavourable editing pattern progressing over a period of several months. I have had to revert or repair your genre-related edits many times. Please note that "hip hop" does not link to a music genre. For that, you would link to "hip hop music". The same applies to items like "rock" and "pop" (etc..), which link to disambiguation pages rather than the actual "rock music" and "pop music" genre articles. As well, music genres are generally not capitalised (see WP:ALBUM#Genre), and only the first letter of the line, proper nouns, and acronyms (such as "R&B") appear in upper-case text. If it wasn't for your ongoing ambiguous genre linking, I may not have noticed you, but based on its frequency and your replies given above, I'm left with no choice than to question the bulk of these edits and keep you on my radar.  -- WikHead (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing music genres, as you did to Chip Diddy Chip, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Continued genre changes to suit your own point of view may result in a block. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Whoever said it was rap rock must've been stupid!--Louis Taylor (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Genre warrior

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Candyo32 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC) What article did I "Vandalize" this time my friend? :/ --Louis Taylor (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Going on articles and repeatedly changing genres without consensus is considered vandalism. GENRES ARE SOURCED WITHIN THE ARTICLE AND DO NOT NEED TO BE REMOVED ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU THINK, per WP:OR. This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Candyo32 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Give a list.--Louis Taylor (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 31 hours, for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 16:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

What? How was I abusing my editing privileges

I see you are continuing to change music genres without any attempt to discuss or to accept consensus. You have been given explanations, and when you ignored those you have been given warnings, and when you ignored those you have been blocked for a short while, but you still continue. You will be blocked for a rather longer time. If you still continue you may eventually be blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the above. You still seem to be randomly changing genres without discussion. As you seem to be factually incorrect almost every time, this has become very disruptive this block is appropriate. When you are willing to commit to avoiding this behavior, this account may be re-enabled. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Soulja Boy Tell 'Em, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Red Flag on the Right Side 06:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC) What? I did not vandalize the soulja boy article --Louis Taylor (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait, adding Snoop Dogg to the associated acts is considered vandalism now,

Well considering that they have done two songs together it is vandalism as Snoop is no where near a associated act. Red Flag on the Right Side 07:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really vandalism, most people that come across that article will just say, "Well he did work with Snoop on his last album" its not like I compleatly destroyed the article and I'm tempted considering he murdered hip-hop and that he is such a poser, see it could be worse, just say its not relevent because vandalism is a strong word.--Louis Taylor (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the fact that he worked with Snoop can be mentioned inside the article as that section is for frequent colaborators not just people he's worked once or twice. Its unconstructive whatever way you look at it. Red Flag on the Right Side 23:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did'nt you say it was unconstructive, it would'nt have pissed me off to much?--Louis Taylor (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The warning is a template not my own words. Red Flag on the Right Side 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to T-Pain, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC) The genres are valid, only one genre is not, maybe if you wer'nt soo corrupted you will see that, one of my best mates was on here and was accused of being someone else and got blocked, maybe if you did'nt block him of something he did'nt do I might change my view--Louis Taylor (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Justin Bieber, you may be blocked from editing. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

July 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Frank Ocean, 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. Dan56 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dappy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Frank Ocean, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Tanya Lacey. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dan56 (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jlwsTskzx8

Here's source.

Michael

Louis, I know you mean good and I thank you for your contributions. However, we do not list every single instrument an artists has played – only those famous ones. Did you know, John Lennon played the banjo? Piano and percussion and other minor instruments that Michael played can be mentioned a little in the body, just not the Infobox. Hope you understand. Any objections, ping us at the talk page. For now, stop reverting, cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 20:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ed Sheeran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)