User talk:SingingZombie

Welcome!

Hello, SingingZombie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Ekkehard wlaschiha, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ekkehard wlaschiha

A tag has been placed on Ekkehard wlaschiha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. 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.

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. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You didn't quite fix it, SingingZombie. Although you drastically shortened it, it still contained a verbatim (unattributed) sentence. I've fixed this now. I have also added a source. Note that articles must be sourced, and particularly biographies of living people. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, and Wikipedia:Copyright violations for guidance before editing again. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Modest Mussorgsky"

I've moved your comment to Talk:Modest Mussorgsky, the standard place to discuss article concerns. DMacks (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice...

Edit summaries like this, especially if acted upon, are liable to get you blocked and are extremely unconstructive. Also, as another editor has told you here, adding comments to articles that are addressed to the readers and other editors is inappropriate. They belong on the article talk page. This is not the first time you've done this, and it really isn't on, nor are additions of unreferenced personal opinion and evaluation of the article's subject.

Wikipedia articles report what reliable and verifiable published sources have written, not what their editors think. Wikipedia is neither an internet forum nor a personal blog. Yet, in many cases you continue to edit as if it were. You may find these restrictions uncongenial and boring, but they're non-negotiable policy on Wikipedia. If you want to continue editing here, deliberately disregarding them is not the way to go.

For further advice and clarification about how to edit appropriately, you may find it helpful to take your questions and views to the projects looking after the subject areas in which you edit, e.g. WikiProject Opera, WikiProject Classical music, WikiProject Films, WikiProject Theatre, etc. – Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

An unusual use of the word shrill. Anyone who's heard O'Shea's voice knows that it's not high-pitched.

I'd like to know your source for "shrill". --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I've seen some of your other edits. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Paul Jennings Hill. Thank you. Hardyplants (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parsifal discography

Hi. Can you please put new entries in the table, not at the foot of the page? Is that OK? Thanks. --Klein zach 07:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll remove the misformatted info. You can put it back in when you have worked out how the table work. Thanks. --Klein zach 08:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parsifal: Parsifal in medical science section

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Parsifal. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Klein zach 09:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General notes

I'm not sure if you are familiar with Wikipedia's Manual of Style or not (WP:MOS), but we have a set of guidelines which helps standardize our articles. We do this in an attempt to be consistent and professional, and it helps the site not seem so much like a hodge podge of crap that random editors post. Part of this is have consistent formatting and stylistic considerations. WP:SURNAME deals with some edits you made to George Tiller. Allow me to quote: For people with academic or professional titles, subsequent uses of names should omit them, with surnames used only. For example, use "Asimov", "Hawking", and "Westheimer"; not "Dr. Asimov", "Professor Hawking" or "Dr. Ruth". Please do not fight this on a single article. If you take issue with our guideline, please raise your issue on that talk page and try to change it. Please accept that part of working on a community project is working with other users, compromising, and accepting general rules and guidelines that apply to the entire site. Additionally, I'd like to note WP:BRD. If you want to be a productive, good faith editor, I'd highly encourage you to not edit war. It is fine to make bold edits to articles. In fact, it is encouraged. However, if someone reverts one of your edits, it is NEVER appropriate to simply re-instate your preferred version. Instead, you can take the matter up on the talk page and try to raise consensus for your version, change minds, or reach a new compromise. When you restored your "Dr." to the article, not only was it clearly ignoring our set style standards, it was the first step in an edit war, a step that I personally think no editor should ever take (and our 3RR is in place to make sure it doesn't lead to worse). If you have questions about any of this, or how wikipedia works in general, I'd be glad to help. Please consider, as a sign of good faith on your part, self-reverting yourself, and restoring the article back to a version that does not go against the manual of style regarding the title "Dr." Thank you for your consideration. -Andrew c ^[talk] 06:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Don Giovanni. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Klein zach 10:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pro-life movement, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A8 UDI 03:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reference to the pro life movement. The first amendment doesnt talk about abortion. A8 UDI 03:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your inappropriate talk page posts

Please stop using the talk pages of articles like an internet forum to publish your personal opinions, anecdotes etc., e.g. [1], [2], [3]. They clutter the talk page and are a violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines:

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

You have also used talk pages to write negative comments about singers, which are entirely inappropriate. I have already refactored this comment. Any further off-topic postings by you to opera article talk pages will be summarily removed. If you want to post anecdotes and personal opinions (provided they do not violate Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons), please do so on your user page. Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research on Biographies of Living Persons

Per your comment here, rest assured, my level of literacy is sufficient, good, even. You have added Original Research to several pro-life articles, most recently the biographies of Jill Stanek and Bernard Nathanson. These pages constitute Biographies of Living Persons, BLPs have a special place on Wikipedia and editors must take care with them and as such, many of these recent additions cannot stand.

Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. You seem bright enough and some of your contributions have been productive but this business on the pro-life pages is damaging to the encyclopedia, as such I've included a link to our introduction page here, please read up on it. - Schrandit (talk) 06:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your contributions to abortion-related articles. Thank you. - Schrandit (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as this on Wikipedia are inappropriate. We are not a battleground to fight external political or social battles. That isn't what we're here for.

Please refocus on the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia and refrain from such advocacy actions on the project.

Continued use of comments in that manner would lead to further warnings and eventually blocks to prevent ongoing disruption of the project. Hopefully you can simply refrain from behavior which is that problematic in the future.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Brooklyn Repertory Opera

It is courteous to notify (minimally) the article's creator when an article has been listed for deletion. I have now done this on your behalf. [4] – Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, SingingZombie. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've further responded on my talk page. I won't bother with more talkback templates here, as I'll assume you're watching my page. Voceditenore (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

double entry

Instead of creating two pages, click on "move" next time. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been suspended indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not permitted to use Wikipedia space to call for the murder (and we use the legal definition here, not your understanding of it) of other people. You were previously requested to cease making these comments, and have not done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Parsifal

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Parsifal/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

As per advice from Peter Cohen and Elockid, I request unblocking. Thx.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Sandstein 22:08, 22 August 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, I won't do it again, and i will make constructive additions to wiki as I have recently been doing.

Decline reason:

Merely saying that you understand something doesn't show that you understand. You need to explain what "it" is you won't do anymore, and why doing "it" in the first place got you blocked. If you can demonstrate that you know why you are blocked, (rather than just saying, genericly, "I understand") and if you can explain what you will do differently if you are unblocked, you stand a much better chance of being unblocked. Jayron32 04:35, 23 August 2010 (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.

To the reviewing admin - the discussion here is relevant to this request. TN X Man 03:25, 23 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand wiki is not the place for political activism.

Decline reason:

Nope. "Political activism" is one thing, what you were advocating goes well beyond the standard definition and socially accepted limits of activism and crosses into the realm of hate speech. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2011 (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.

... and how are you going to proceed in the future? You have been blocked more than once for pretty serious reasons. This type of behaviour absolutely needs to stop - there can be no chance of any similar actions ever. What's going to be different? How will you react in the future? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]