User talk:SSM Enigma

Hi SSM Enigma! 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 experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your reversal at Geoffrey Gordon (composer) was in contravention of several WP:Manual of Style guidelines. In detail:

1. According to
   WP:OVERLINK
   , common terms are not wikilinked; that includes "United States" and "Washington, D.C."
2. The subject's name is to be bolded only once, in the 1st sentence; see
   MOS:BOLD
   .
3. The subject is to be referred to by his surname – no "Mr. Gordon"; see
   MOS:SURNAME
   .
4. All quotations must be sourced; see
   WP:QUOTE
   .
5. Wikipedia text doesn't use the ellipsis character (…) but three dots; see
   MOS:ELLIPSIS
   .
6. Wikipedia text does not use inline external links; they belong in citations, or in "External links"; see
   WP:EL
   .
7. Section headings are written in sentence case, not in title case ("List of Works"), not in all-caps ("SOLO"); see
   MOS:HEADINGS
   .
8. When an editor requests a citation, the template must not be removed without addressing the matter; see
   WP:BURDEN
   .
9. The name of a NYT editor was misspelled twice.
10. Unusual styling of titles is usually disregarded in Wikipedia (not "QUINTET", but "Quintet"); see
    MOS:TITLECAPS
    .
11. Wikipedia distinguishes between hyphen, en dash, and em dash; each has their role; see
    MOS:DASH
    .
12. Repeated blank characters, and trailing blanks, have no purpose; when other substantial edits take place, they should be removed.

I have restored those improvements to the article. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's MoS. You might also consider Wikipedia's policy on

Your recent editing history at Geoffrey Gordon (composer) 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary: "Changes to capitalization against composer's own specific titles. Irresponsible revisions." You should note that a composer's styling of the titles of his works is not always how they are listed in Wikipedia articles; I've linked to the relevant section of the MoS above. The phrase "Irresponsible revisions" borders on violating

WP:CIVIL

, is not supported by the details of my edits, and I reject it emphatically.

More seriously, the capitalisation of section headings in Wikipedia articles is a completely different matter, and there is no uncertainty: they use sentence case, never

disruptive. I suggest you revert yourself and restore numerous improvements to the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2017 (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. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log

)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Mahlersghost". The reason given for Mahlersghost's block is: "Sock puppetry".

• Blocking administrator: NeilN (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: Obviously not. You were clearly violating

WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See