User talk:Xavierla 2

Xavierla 2, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Xavierla 2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Soul music, 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 by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Musdan77 (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Also, see WP:BRD. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Styles of house music. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Miami bass, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 21:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring over musical genres. We do not allow users to just add or remove genres based upon their own opinions; like everything else in Wikipedia, genres must be verified by reliable sources. After your block is up, you should go to the talk pages of the articles where you've had disputes and discuss possible changes; further edit warring will result in your account being reblocked for a longer period of time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please would you stop editing the house and garage pages with no substantiated explanations? a great deal of research has gone into the house music history, and it is distressing to see it disrupted. Thank you.

(Etheldavis (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

September 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to make unsourced changes to large numbers of music articles. Again, to be clear WP:V is not optional. Find sources to support these changes, or you cannot make them. Next time, I'll make the block much much longer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for continuing the edit warring as an IP (216.251.112.134). You have to stop. You have to discuss on the article talk page, and you have to permanently cease removing sourced material and adding in your own opinion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now also posting as IP address 187.211.29.112? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.77.247 (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wobble bass-step

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

It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. PamD 08:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning

Your edits on Neo soul come extremely close to repeating the same edit warring that got you blocked last time. If you're reverted there, or at any other house related article, start discussion on the article's talk page. If you do not--if you engage in anything even close to edit warring, I'll block you indefinitely. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rain dance (music genre)

The article Rain dance (music genre) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unverified, no suggestion here or on the internetz that this is a notable genre.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm Jackmcbarn. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Rain dance (music genre), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Rain dance (music genre) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rain dance (music genre) 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/Rain dance (music genre) 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion, as you did at Rain dance (music genre), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You've had a ton of disruptive edits already, and this was another one. Time for a final warning. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing to edit war, this time by removing AfD templates from an article. Plus, it seems that you were trying to add those same genre labels to other articles. It appears that you are simply unable to work collaboratively, and instead simply insist that articles be created according to your own personal, unverified knowledge. This style of editing is fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, so I see no choice but to block you indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (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).

Xavierla 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have simply tried to fix inconsistencies with in the information of certain music genresXavierla 2 (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits show that you have utterly failed to take many editors' comments into consideration, causing considerable disruption. This could all have been prevented, but your unblock request shows you still don't understand what the problem was with your editing. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2013 (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.