User talk:Iamafanofpizza

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Iamafanofpizza, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Rina Nakanishi. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DAJF (talk) 08:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Stoya[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Stoya), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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! Materialscientist (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of real names for stage performers is contentious and not neutral as you claim in your edit. The article you cite to does not directly support your insertion as it takes some inference to do so even if it seems obvious to you. Continuing to edit war over this will get you blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Tina Yuzuki[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person (Tina Yuzuki), but that you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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! Materialscientist (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

Hi. Re your recent edits to the Yuma Asami article, I wonder if you are confusing ethnicity with nationality. It is safe to say that the subject is described as "Japanese" (her nationality), but in the absence of any reliable sources, you or I have no way of knowing her ethnicity (she could be of Korean descent for all you know). As such, we cannot include such information without a reliable source to back it up. I hope that clears up any confusion. --DAJF (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I think we should also find reliable sources proving that she is a female. Perhaps a link to a free, streaming trailer/preview for one of her works will suffice?--Iamafanofpizza (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iamafanofpizza, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Iamafanofpizza! 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! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Stoya 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Maria Ozawa has been reverted.
Your edit here to Maria Ozawa was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://twitter.com/ozawamaria0108) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Zionist political violence. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

I see you have already been warned about edit warring above - please note that, as clearly stated at Talk:Zionist political violence, that article is on a 1RR rule (1 revert in 24 hours) which you have broken - you may care to revert yourself, before you are blocked - Arjayay (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Zionist political violence, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Murder of Özgecan Aslan. - Arjayay (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) That was not vandalism, I was being serious- so fuck you.--Iamafanofpizza (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for diruptive editing and trolling. If these are the type of edits you intend to contribute here, you're not welcome.. 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. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 21 February 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was bored and annoyed at constant rv'ing to fair edits. At least bother to check my contrib history before flat out telling me that I'm 'not welcome' here, majority of my edits have been accepted and helpful. Also, one of those talk page posts was serious, not a joke (the one about the Turkish girl). I may not be a WP editing veteran, but I'm pretty sure edits on talk pages are to be taken more lightly than edits for proper articles. Don't look at this like we're judges at the supreme court. Iamafanofpizza (talk) 19:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were clearly inappropriate. Attempts to justify them based on your mood is not in any way reassuring. Kuru (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2015 (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.