Я посмотрел твои ВАНДАЛЬНЫЕ правки, здесь, в англоязычной википедии, в описаниях своих изменений ты пишешь на русском языке вместо английского, всякие глупости типа 'уже есть' , 'еще нету' и т.д. Надо тебе дать недельку бани за это ? Как считаешь ?

И как понимать вот эту фразу 'так вы и тут начали' написанную тобой на моей странице обсуждения, что я тут начал ?! Отвечай за свои слова. Dedmaan (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

И ? Не меня заблокировали за ВП:НО 2 раза). Вас тут всё таки откатили [1] Mistery Spectre (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ха ха, меня откатили, это большой аргумент ? Скажи, а почему ты не расцениваешь свои собственные действия отмены правок или чьи либо еще как Война правок ? Dedmaan (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

И будь любезен покажи мне источник в котором упоминаются именно такие стили [2] в формировании стиля jazz fusion. Dedmaan (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ваш вариант тоже без источника, поэтому почему именно я должен что-то доказывать, тем более к довоенной версии. И как тут не расценить как война правок регуларные и настойчивые возвращения своих правок без аргументации и аи, не смотря на протесты участников и удаление предупреждений с пометкой спам. Каким сайтом я вам спамлю, не подскажите? Mistery Spectre. И удалять чужие правки с СО, с пометкой спам ой как не конструктивно. (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Во первых, в статью jazz fusion уже заходило много администраторов, никто из них не счел мои изменения как война правок. Во вторых, слово Fusion переводится с английского как Сплав, это означает что данный стиль может содержать в себе любые жанры и стили, любые, а их много. Jazz fusion называется так потому что в нем преобладает жанр jazz, но это не значит что в нем есть только несколько стилей которые указаны в статье jazz fusion. Dedmaan (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

И еще раз повторяю, никакой войны правок я не веду, так что претензии типа [3] мне больше не сыпь, я серьезно, а то обращусь к администраторам. Dedmaan (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Источники на всё это есть, или только размышления? И разве не война правок - настойчивое восстановление своих правок? Текст со своей СО удалять нельзя. Приглашайте админов, мне интересно как вы объясните им удаление предупреждений с пометкой спам Mistery Spectre (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please communicate in English. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 User talk:Dedmaan, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. It is obvious that Dedmaan does not wish to have your messages (in Russian) on their talk page, and they are perfectly in their right to remove them. To continue to reinstate them is uncivil, and I want to urge you to stop. Please communicate in English: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and this happens to be the English Wikipedia. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I noted also that most of your edit summaries are not in English. Please use English, as the editor above has urged also. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make test edits to articles, as you did with this edit to User talk:Drmies, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits constitute vandalism, and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donald Duck (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realized, thanks for sharing your concerns Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your changes on Sonic Syndicate, because of changes without any arguments (see the discussionpage). 89.236.146.135 (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And then the arguments are not needed, or you want to say that metalcore man periodically can play pop? Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you hear the new album? I did. Here are four songs from the new album:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_1v_vtoZy8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvrwU_JCU3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ha6Gvq72CU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6YXUc67tV0

listen to them.. and then tell me again that the new album is Metalcore or Melodic Death metal. The other albums were core and death but the new isnt, and so the genre should be added? 89.236.146.135 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not you think that this kind of a joke by the group? There are serious sources as Rolling Stone, or at least metal encyclopaedia, then write pop Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and at least two references standard alternative, but not pop Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda joke from the band? I do not think so, I think that the changes are from Nuclearblast, to create a new hype and bring the band some air time on MTV. This is metalcore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsaCqWn7png and this is melo death: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZqfH1LQEOQ I Just think that its wrong to call the band still a melo or metalcore band. Btw even Nuclearblast themself labeled the new album with Pop-Rock 89.236.146.135 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call themselves, then you are welcome. But Much Easier does not in itself a source of Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Would you mind explaining this edit? Most of it is fine, but what's the meaning of changing "at the age of fifteen" to "at the age of Archaius"? ~ mazca ^talk 19:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article says "not to change the genre, but anonymous did it a few times. Especially in the list of performers death metal, they are indicated with a source. P.S Please forgive me for my english) Mistery Spectre (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genre change was fine - I was just asking about the "archaius" sentence you added. :) ~ mazca ^talk 22:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I honestly wanted to roll back but I had to do a complete rollback of anonymous edits over the entire period) why it happened Mistery Spectre (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problem then. Thanks for your help. ~ mazca ^talk 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To quote you: "Well there is not written that this is the general style of the album". The Allmusic clearly states "11 tracks are packed full of heavy, riff-laden guitars, prog metal beats, and Hollywood star Jared Leto's soaring vocals and sci-fi lyrics, making it one of the more convincing actor-turned-rock star efforts." That's how the reviewer describes the album. He describes the albums music with progressive metal, therefore it should be included. Space rock might be another possible inclusion with the reference to Pink Floyd and the album being described as "space-themed concept album" Leto's lyrics being described as "sci-fi." However, there is enough dispute over the genres that it's probably best leave it out for the moment! lol.

As for "Why this stubbornness is a of the genre?" If you check, most 30STM [album & singles] articles genres are edited constantly, genres removed/changes simply because editors personally don't agree they should be there. It's better that they are sourced. Also if you want to come to a consensus over the genre, it's best to start a discussion on the articles talk page rather than you're edit summary. Hope I have expained it well. =) HrZ (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop to add those bogus sources. This is the last warning.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic fake?) Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the review. Jon O'Brien doesn't mention post grunge in its review.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

said link, now I hope you will not break the rules and throw kickbacks "vandalism"? Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style - Post-Grunge [4]

- blind? Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why the sources you used aren't good. Other users did the same thing here, on your talk page. If you don't understand you mustn't add bogus sources. You are doing vandalisms. I hope you'll understand.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 15:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you tell me once again explain why the same source of direct indication of the genre is discarded, and the casual mention of how to put up almost the basic idea. Also, I can not figure out where I have "intentional acts aimed at damaging information." I understand to assume the good intentions here, too, is not accepted? I did not even completely roll back your edit, and only returned references to the same AMG. But, again, rolled back and the explanation in the style of "I told you so." Or you hope that I get tired of fighting with you and go away?) Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon O'Brien from Allmusic doesn't mention post grunge in its review. "Intelligible explanation of you I never gave." I did it. Actually you didn't give an Intelligible explanation. It's really boring now.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You kidding? I'll have a place, and even added a second source. Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the design of the source there, and then the pattern "broken" Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; no endorsement to either side of this content dispute, just fixing an error on the page. Kuru (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand that I broke, so I will not stutter even on premature withdrawal of the lock Mistery Spectre (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving the block in place, because you did edit war. I did discover that your opponent is an editor that has been banned from Wikipedia and is not permitted to edit. His new account has been blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ignore the past discussions. If you want to add a new genre, you must use the talk page.--Сказал (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was a sock of the same editor you had a dispute with the last time. He's been blocked.—Kww(talk) 15:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing edit summaries in Russian, and I believe you know that you should be communicating in English. This is disruptive and I am asking you to stop. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, just in English I find it easier to communicate verbally than in writing. So I do not want to look like an idiot with one-syllable phrases. But I will try Mistery Spectre (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Sug, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Heavy metal and J-Rock (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) 10:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added Category:Anti-Americanism to this article. I have reverted; that's the kind of category that should not be added to articles about living people, as it implies they hold prejudiced or discriminatory views. In the text of the article, you can be more nuanced and explain a person's views, but to just put them in a category like that is usually a bad idea. Thanks for reading. Robofish (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inviting you to discuss the issue further at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Jewish superheroes. Thanks. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have been edit warring on these articles during the discussion, I am reporting you to the edit-warring noticeboard. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

We can speak here if you wish... My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Russia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Do not use dummy edits (which should be indicated in the edit summary as 'nx') in articles in order to prolong WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This time, and was an attempt to "insinuate" that, dialogue is better than a silly war edits Mistery Spectre (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Taivo.
While you are welcome to strike through comments you have added to another user's talk page (with an apology or explanation), you are not to remove your own accusations, which were responded to, and leave edit summaries constituting a blatant personal attack as your reason for doing so. Read WP:TALK and WP:TALKNO. Please desist from your WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is, in the English Wikipedia, the user may remove others posts, in addition to what I'm going to blame that did not remove my text? OK, I know. And I thought the problem was limited to the substitution of a consensus view of the group of interested users, lol. Mistery Spectre (talk)

Please don't be flippant about your tampering with another user's talk page. I am being serious about Wikipedia protocol, and am not issuing a warning in order to play games with you. For your own sake, make certain that you abide by policy and guidelines lest you get yourself into trouble you didn't anticipate. While I realise that English is not your native language, languages other than English are not accepted for engaging in talk page discussions. If you feel that you're better able to express yourself in your native language, ask the user you are engaging with if they are prepared to engage with you in your language of choice (in which case, they will translate on your behalf for the edification of other users who may be reading the comment/communique). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian Wikipedia not remove message for user talk, the more warnings if they don't lost relevance. But as I see, the user still loves to use undo to solve problems. Mistery Spectre (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I realise English is not your first language, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you referring to me or Taivo? In either case, English Wikipedia allows for the removal of messages on one's own talk page per WP:REMOVED. The history of the talk page remains in place, so if you have issues with the user you can still pull up discussions by finding the differences: therefore, if you are having problems with the user and need to report them, you can always find those discussions archived or in the history. When it comes to removing or refactoring another user's talk page, you don't have the right to do so without their permission, or unless there is an obvious breach of Wikipedia policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cinema Bizarre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop. 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) 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]