User talk:RobThomas15

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, RobThomas15! Thank you for your contributions. I am Brookie and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

$Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...)$ 10:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brantley Gilbert et al.[edit]

Just a heads-up: we generally don't use Heatseekers Songs on articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Mainstream Top 40 number-one hits of 2011 (U.S.) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited English auxiliaries and contractions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G'day (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) 08:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Kyrie Irving. 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. —Bagumba (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate editors have disagreed with you now regarding your edits to Kyrie Irving. Please refrain from undoing again and instead discuss on the article's talk page. Like the above warning states, you will likely receive a block if you continue to edit war. Seek out other methods instead of simply undoing. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, RobThomas15. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on The Venture Bros.. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. I will change the entry to "illegitimate." Please do *not* insult or attack other editors in revision comments or *anywhere.* KNHaw ^(talk) 22:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license[edit]

Unspecified source/license for File:EphraimsRescue.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:EphraimsRescue.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, RobThomas15. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Tarrus Riley does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Michig (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jasen Wade[edit]

Hello RobThomas15,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Jasen Wade for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Darin Southam[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Darin Southam, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1576079/bio. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jasen Wade[edit]

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

lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. does not meet notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello RobThomas15, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Jasen Wade have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017[edit]

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Nicole Oliver, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Actress covers BOTH on-camera and voice work. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Nicole Oliver. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 1986. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Mat Kearney does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. I see Michig asked you this in December. Without explanation, it's hard to determine why an action was made. Wan without sources, no changes should be made. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to define "origin" when it's defined at template:Infobox musical artist: "The town, city etc., from which the group or musician originated (that is, the place where the group was founded, or where individual performer started their career, should it not match the location of their birth)." The two fields are distinct because the place where a musician or band is from is not the same place that they 'started their career". The "early life" section makes it clear "Kearney decided to stay in Nashville to record a few demos". If that's not the time he started his career, that should be clarified in the article.

Also, it's time to take this to the article's talk page since this now appears to be an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mat_Kearney&oldid=prev&diff=825511070 this makes it an edit war. I suggest a self-revert is in order. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional antiheroes[edit]

Your 'source' does not refer to the Steed character as an anti-hero. Further, it is a promotional site foe selling the books and should not be used as a source in the first place. Edward321 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source refers to a character as an anti-hero, then the source supports the claim that the character is an anti-hero. Since your sources do not to refer to the characters as anti-heroes, they do not support the idea that the characters are anti-heroes. Edward321 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Hello, I'm Denniss. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Max Charles, 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! Denniss (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Back to Beautiful shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Hayman30 (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this report with a warning to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tatum Chiniquy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tatum Chiniquy 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/Tatum Chiniquy 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 notice from the top of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s. The song is titled "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)". The parenthetical portion is part of the title not a Wikipedia disambiguator. See https://songselect.ccli.com/Songs/6016351/10-000-reasons-bless-the-lord Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In short, if you don't know, don't act as though you do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:RobThomas15 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: ). Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of number-one Billboard Christian Songs of the 2010s. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been extended to one week for registering a new account to continue the edit war. If you evade your block again, or resume edit warring when this block expires, your next block will be even longer. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobThomas15, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question on your SPI page, the user called User:SarekOfVulcan is an admin. In edit history on all pages, there are three links for a user, their name, which takes you their user page, a talk page link and a contributions link. By clicking through to the user page, you can see who prominent editors are. Most admins publicize the fact on their page, and this editor is no exception. I am not an admin. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

Because you have created another sock, I've made the block "even longer."

If you create any more accounts, the block will last forever. Any accounts you make will be blocked on sight, any edits you do will be reverted like vandalism, and maybe even innocent users who try to change the song title to what you think it should be may be blocked as sockpuppets of yours. If you're a troll, that's what you'll want to do next.

If you're not a troll, then you'll need to stop creating accounts, accept that you've done things the wrong way, and try to do things the right way. That's going to involve admitting what you've done wrong (hint: WP:EW, WP:ILLEGIT) and explain how you plan to avoid such behaviors in the future. Blaming anyone else is not going to work. This isn't about article content, this is about your behavior. The other admins and I don't care at all what the song is called in the article, or whether you or Walter are right, so any attempt to argue about the article will be ignored.

Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I should point out that Wikipedia:Standard offer may apply. If you're interested, feel free to comment here and be prepared to wait until after Valentine's Day, at the least, before asking to be unblocked. I'm not an admin but I've seen enough block cases like yours to know that if you do create another sockpuppet that you may just be shooting yourself in the foot.

As to the original issue, I'll point out that Redman's album is called 10,000 Reasons and there is a song on the album called "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)". That is confirmed at http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/cdreviews/10000Reasons.asp https://www.allmusic.com/album/10000-reasons-mw0002154838 https://songselect.ccli.com/Songs/6016351/10-000-reasons-bless-the-lord and a half dozen other sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the 2012 Grammys, iirc. I'm not interested in looking for the link again, but the list showed parenthetical. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SarekOfVulcan: Thanks, but it was 2013: 55th Annual Grammy Awards and there is a stand-alone article for "Gospel music" at Grammy Award for Best Gospel/Contemporary Christian Music Performance. The reference on the nomination page states that the nomination was for "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)" Matt Redman from: 10,000 Reasons (Wikipedia formatting applied). Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Görlitz 55th, yes. 2013, no. :-) https://www.grammy.com/grammys/awards/55th-annual-grammy-awards --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

I do not remember ever pinning a blame on someone else for something they did not do. I think you may have confused me with someone else. So could you please unblock me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobThomas15 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. Just to recap your current situation:

This all started when you claimed that a song called "10,000 Reasons (Bless the Lord)" was instead called "10,000 Reasons" in the face of evidence to the contrary. You did not discuss the issue aside from telling me I was wrong (and that the writer of the song himself was wrong). You did edit war. I reported your edit warring. I did not game the system to cause you to edit war nor did I game the system when I provided the evidence at the review. You were blocked for a period of one day for edit warring and only for edit warring. If you had waited for 24 hours, and discussed the issue when you had returned you would likely not be on an indefinite block now.

Instead, you tried to circumvent the block by creating a new account. You used that account to further the edit war. You were caught. That account was blocked indefinitely and the block here was extended to one week.

You then tried to circumvent the second block and created another new account. You used that account to further the edit war. You were caught again. That account was blocked indefinitely and the block here was extended to an indefinite one.

I then commented that a Wikipedia:Standard offer may apply and explained what I thought was a reasonable set of suggestions. Of course, since I'm not an admin, nothing I say can be held on the rest of the community.

You did not respond to that comment and instead created third sock account to further the edit war. You were caught again. That pretty much threw out any good will that an admin might have for you. I suspect that you're going to have to sit out for more than six months as suggested in the standard offer, but I'll let an admin address that issue.

Again, despite your claims that I am the reason you're blocked, your indefinite block is entirely your fault. You edit warred against the facts to change a song title and then attempted to circumvent the block and continued the edit war.

If you want to come back you will have to follow what the standard offer states:

Wait six months, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
Promise to avoid the behaviour that led to the block/ban.
Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

In your specific case, I will paraphrase

Wait until at least March 2019 before submitting a formal unblock request. Do not create any new accounts. Do not edit even as an anon. I'm fairly certain than any admin who might review your request in 2019 will check to see what sort of edits have been coming from the ISPs you have been using. Do contribute to Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects.
State that you understand why you were blocked (and I would like to suggest that it will include understanding what the actual title of the song is, the one you edit warred over) and explain how you'll avoid edit warring in the future. You don't have to say you're sorry for edit warring, just showing that you understand why is key here. You could voluntarily offer to observe the one revert rule or follow WP:BRD religiously. This will not be an imposed solution, it has to be up to you to explain how you hope to improve your behaviour.
Be on your best behaviour with respect to Wikipedia between now and the time you return, that includes playing dumb on your talk page. The third sockpuppet even makes comments to support the claim that that account was run by you: [1][2]. Again, it could be contributing constructively to sister projects.

I can't guarantee that your formal unblock request will be accepted at a later date, but you can try.

Your block log shows the progress I described. The three confirmed sockpuppets are listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RobThomas15/Archive. Am I missing something? Did I get something wrong, perhaps in the chronology? If an anon would like to comment on my interpretation of the standard offer, I'd be happy to hear it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because RobThomas15 has engaged in so much sockpuppetry, WP:3X applies and RobThomas13 is community banned. The situation was repeatedly explained to him. Each additional sockpuppet he makes leaves me convinced that RobThomas15 was always a troll and never anything but that. If he wants to prove me wrong, then he'll need to stop for at least a year and come back with an unblock request that admits that everything he's done here was completely wrong (the edit warring, the sockpuppetry, the accusations toward others: everything) and that he hopes to help in some other area of the site (with a one-year topic ban on Christian music), with clear suggestions for what he plans to do (the topic, the types of edits he will make, the conflict-resolution strategies he use if he runs into disagreements). Anything short of that is going to be refused by the community -- and it's the community who would have to unban and unblock him. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

@Ian.thomson, SarekOfVulcan, and Someguy1221: After extensive checkuser analysis and discussion, User:Bbb23 and I have reached the conclusion that RobThomas15 has been joe-jobbed - that RobThomas15 has not engaged in any sockpuppetry. Further, we believe that all the other accounts, which were originally stated to be confirmed to RobThomas15, are confirmed to be Architect 134, an LTA known for trouble-making. (Bbb23 might phrase all this differently, but the message should be essentially the same). We will probably update the paperwork in the near future. I therefore propose that RobThomas15 is unblocked, and that 3X is invalidated. I am happy to do the unblock myself; as blocking admins you all have the right to chip in. (ping). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I only blocked for the edit warring, and those blocks should be long done. No objection to unblock/unban at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me either. Since it's clear that it was an editor who was trying to impersonate RobThomas15, my apologies to RobThomas15 for following WP:QUACK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's CU evidence, then my apologies. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RobThomas15 you've been unblocked and you're welcome to continue editing (though obviously try not to edit-war). With apologies it took so long.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

copy paste moves[edit]

Kindly stop edting the LDS redirect, and mormon cinema for a while. What you did is called as a copy-paste move. Page history gets lost in such moves. I will undo your actions, and you should start a forme move discussion. You can find more information at WP:RM. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also see: Talk:Mormon fiction#Requested move 23 May 2018. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at LDS cinema shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. MarnetteD|Talk 01:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bunsen Is a Beast has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Bunsen Is a Beast, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, RobThomas15. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at User talk:usernamekiran#LDS cinema[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:usernamekiran#LDS cinema. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Alan Walker (music producer)[edit]

A complaint about your edits was filed at WP:RFPP. You should consider getting consensus at Talk:Alan Walker (music producer) before trying to change his nationality again. Otherwise, you are risking a block under the WP:Edit warring policy. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ass[edit]

If you edit war again on the lede, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per User talk pages policies, my removal of your previous comment acknowledges that I've read it, and as such there is no need to post it again. If you continue to do so, you'll be blocked for harassment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 48 hours for harassment[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

RobThomas15 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not harass anyone, I just promised not to harass that user unless they responded to my comment. RobThomas15 (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So you harassed someone to respond to your promise to not harass them? It doesn't work that way. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

A timeline: (1) I warned you to stop edit-warring on Ass (2) you post a non-sequitor on my talk page, which I removed, which per talk page policies acknowledges that I've read it (3) you repost it (4) I ask you to stop reposting it with a link to the relevant talk page policy, noting that continuing to do so will constitute harassment (5) you post it again, threatening to harass me further unless I respond.

If you continue to harass me or anyone else after this block expires, the next block will be longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sister (disambiguation)[edit]

Our article is at Mormons and that's therefore the terminology we use. It has a wider definition than the LDS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article should be at LDS, because that is the more correct way of saying it. RobThomas15 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that has probably been discussed ad infinitem. Latter Day Saints redirects elsewhere. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Big City Greens. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Amaury • 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Kimball (surname).

"God's law" has no particular meaning or force on Wikipedia. You are free to try to change the guideline, but not by edit warring to force your changes into articles when the guideline does not agree with you. bonadea contributions talk 06:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maia Brewton edit-warring[edit]

Adding a statement "It is unknown..." is completely un-helpful. There are a lot of things we don't know... listing them doesn't increase anyone's knowledge, it just expresses your curiosity. Also, in this case it is also false: someone certainly does know the circumstances of the children's birth. But the family apparently hasn't shared that information with the public, because they figure it isn't anyone's business. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Stuck in the Middle (TV series), you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 02:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish -> Jews and Not Broken[edit]

WP:NOTBROKEN reads

There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

So yes, [[Jewish]] redirects to Jews so it's not necessary to have [[Jews|Jewish]]. Ever. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC) I disagree with that last statement. For one, it will direct you to the page with that exact title. Also, it is not necessary ever to have Jewish either. RobThomas15 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you agree with, WP:NOTBROKEN is clear. If you violate it again, you will be blocked (again). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not linking Jewish, per WP:OVERLINK, it's not necessary to link religions in most instances. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury • 18:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Suite Life of Zack and Cody[edit]

If teens being "inb" a sitcom doesn't make it a teen sitcom, then what does?! RobThomas15 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do the presence of adults in a sitcom make it an "adult sitcom"? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say it was a teen sitcom just because of the presence of teens. Besides, said teens include the titular brothers, no? RobThomas15 (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I'm coming a but late to this discussion, but I always thought that a teen sitcom was a situation comedy geared toward teen viewers. It does not necessarily have to have teenagers as its main characters, and not all comedies with teenagers as the main characters are teen sitcoms. Think of That '70s Show, Doogie Howser, M.D. and others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing further, go by what the sources call it, not what your gut tells you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]