User talk:Yaneleksklus

Welcome

Hello, Yaneleksklus, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sandstein 06:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Low Bap deletion

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Low Bap, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --daydreamer (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to work on referencing it in the following days. (it'll probably result in references mostly in greek but that's better than nothing) :) --daydreamer (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yaneleksklus

I am glad that you want to improve wikipedia. But please, stop and talk about the changes to Dubstep and 2-step garage. You are not understanding wiki rules correctly. This is not about having A LOT of references. It is about having GOOD references, ones that pass the wikipedia policy on sources. Please read the policy about verifiability and the one about notability as well. I don't want to sound like I am personally attacking you, but you did not improve 2-step garage - it was better before you started editing it. Your references are not good and your english is imperfect. You are not helping these articles. If you don't understand some phrases in the links above, ask me and i will explain them. --Kaini (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to revert again, for now. But please talk about the changes you are making. Several people including me worked hard to get Dubstep to good article status. Nobody owns the article but you are not helping the article! --Kaini (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask you one more time - please talk to the other editors who work on the articles you're making changes to. It seems that you are getting all your information from one or two books, and you think that the article should just be based on that information. That is not the way we do things on wikipedia. You do not own articles, and you are not the only person who gets to decide what goes in articles. Today you reverted about fifteen small improvements I made to the Dubstep article. Please, work with other editors to make articles better instead of completely rewriting them, or I will have to seek assistance to prevent you from doing this. --Kaini (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have raised our dispute on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

F.Y.I. --Kaini (talk) 01:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using the Preview button

Hello Yaneleksklus. Noticing your very large number of successive edits at 2-step garage, I urge you to try the Show preview button to see the effect of your changes before you save them. Otherwise the history log fills up with Saves of a few characters each, which makes it hard for others to figure out what was done with the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2-step garage

Both you and User:Kaini have essentially violated WP:3RR here, so the page is now protected. Please discuss your dispute on the talk page. - filelake shoe 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2-step garage. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by True Steppa (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring at 2-step garage and other articles; using multiple accounts. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I WANNA EDIT FROM MY OWN ACCOUNT

Decline reason:

And you can, when your block expires. I hope the phrasing of this request doesn't mean that you have been editing while blocked; that would result in a lengthening of the block, or even making the block indefinite. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:42, 16 October 2008 (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.

Because you've been evading this block by editing as User:93.85.48.186, I've increased the length of your block to two weeks. Have a nice day. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:04, 16 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I WANNA EDIT ARTICLES FROM MY OWN ACCOUNT, ESPECIALLY 2Step garage

Decline reason:

You still haven't given a reason why you should be unblocked. Stop evading your blocks immediately, and read this guide for tips on how to better format your request. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:03, 16 October 2008 (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.

If you keep editing from other accounts, I will block you indefinitely. As you've noticed, I'm already blocking the ips you're using to avoid this block. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I HAVE A DESIRE TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA RIGHT NOW

Decline reason:

Continuing to abuse this template will result in your talk page being protected. An excellent first step would be to turn off your caps lock. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:06, 16 October 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I NEED TO ADD INFO TO 2Step garage RIGHT NOW

Decline reason:

Not a chance, per evidence you've been caught evading your block. Talk page protected. — Blueboy 96 20:13, 16 October 2008 (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.

Block evasion

Because you've continued to evade your block under 92.244.180.3 (talk · contribs) and 75.148.59.157 (talk · contribs), your block has been extended to three weeks. I'm not concerned about whether your edits are valid, but block evasion is not tolerated, especially when using proxies to possibly give the illusion of greater support for your edits. You are of course welcome to edit after three weeks, but until then, don't even think about abusing multiple addresses. The more you sock, the less likely you are to be welcomed back. I urge you to abide by these conditions, otherwise there won't be another chance. Spellcast (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wonky (music)

I have nominated Wonky (music), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wonky (music). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. - filelake shoe 11:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aquacrunk

I have nominated Aquacrunk, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquacrunk. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wonky (music)

A tag has been placed on Wonky (music) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. John Collier (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Wonky (music)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wonky (music), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Not a notable article on music

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. John Collier (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Wonky (music)

A tag has been placed on Wonky (music) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. John Collier (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion for Wonky Music

Please refrain from removing the speedy deletion tag or I will notify an administrator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcollier (talk • contribs) 16:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disco

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Maxim_(talk) 17:59, 29 November 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

all my edits were reviewed both on talkpages and in edit summaries

Decline reason:

Per your contributions and the history of the article, it is clear that you violated 3RR and were in an edit war with another user, who has also been blocked. — The Helpful One 18:06, 29 November 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

i request lowering block period. all my edits were reviewed both on talkpages and in edit summaries. +all my edits are referenced.

Decline reason:

No. You have violated the three-revert rule before (with a block of 1 week), and you have also ban evaded (2 weeks block and then 3 weeks block) so this block time is appropriate. — The Helpful One 18:11, 29 November 2008 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yaneleksklus for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block extension

As you have evaded your block using User:Z19AK3JH, I have extended your block to 45 days. Black Kite 08:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yaneleksklus (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense of Template:Dubstep

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Dubstep, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Dubstep provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Dubstep, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Electro-grime

I have nominated Electro-grime, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro-grime. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Hauntology (musical genre)

I have nominated Hauntology (musical genre), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hauntology (musical genre). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ridernyc (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dubstep

Template:Dubstep has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 23:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]