Thanks for uploading File:? Deluxe Anniversary Edition cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ? (XXXTentacion album); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Okay, so I will revert it back to what the original condition of the article was and you can make your case on the talk page. Does that sound alright? Nice4What (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Supermarket (Logic album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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. StaticVapormessage me!04:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@STATicVapor: Since bringing the matter to the talk page, I haven't tried to put anything back into the article. I've been restoring a {{Disputed inline}} tag that was removed from the lead, which is important since it's marking what's at dispute. It links to the discussion on the talk page. I am almost certain this is an exception to 3RR, so maybe you should look into the edit history a bit closer. Nice4What (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for uploading the cover art, but the cover you uploaded is clearly a blurry, low-quality rip from somewhere...I can't imagine you got it from an official source. It has been replaced with a PNG from iTunes now, as 300×300 PNGs are preferred, so in future, it'd be a benefit to you to convert your files to JPGs lest another editor replace them elsewhere. Ss11218:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
May 2019
Your recent editing history at Igor (album) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. StaticVapormessage me!21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that constitutes edit warring beyond a simple error that could be excused rather than giving a warning. I've also been reverting unsourced vocalists if that's what you're seeing. Nice4What (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi – I don't know if you moved the above Take That song following a consensus discussion (which would have been a good idea) or if it was your choice, but either way, the name is wrong... it should be Rule the World (Take That song), not "single", per Wikipedia naming conventions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's going to be no opposition to the move, so it'll be sorted out soon. I think you were right to try and add the disambiguator back to the song again, but if you come across a technical problem like a redirect in the way again, it's best if you ask for help at WP:RM next time. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And on a related note, thank you for your reply to my question about political engagement in the US. It's interesting to know that meeting your politicians is so widespread. You always hear that "reach out to your Congressman and let them know you (support Bill A) or (oppose Bill B)" on social media, but I didn't think many people actually did that. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion Survivors
Redacted message (16:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC))
"Here is an article you might find interesting that might guide you in the debate about whether or not "abortion survivor" is a neutral term."
Thank you for providing a teachable moment. I'm glad you brought up Annalisa Merelli's article; it was brought to my attention months ago, because it is factually incorrect.
Merelli's article says "the bill peddles the false narrative that abortions happening later in pregnancies could result in live babies left to die by physicians who fail to provide care that would otherwise keep them alive and healthy. This is not a practice that exists". Merelli is apparently unaware of – or worse, wants to suppress – the facts about registered nurse Jill Stanek.
After Stanek was told that an infant who had survived an abortion had been taken to a "soiled utility room" and left to die, she comforted the infant in her arms until it died. After Stanek complained about the policy of not providing medical care to infants who had survived abortions, the hospital stopped using the soiled utility room, and created a "comfort room" in which viable infants who survived abortions were left to die. After Stanek continued to oppose the policy, and took pictures of the "comfort room" and distributed them, she was fired. This experience is what spurred her to support Illinois' Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Although Barack Obama (an Illinois state senator at the time) opposed the Illinois Act, during the 2008 presidential campaign his position evolved; he said that had he been a member of the U.S. Senate at the time, he "would have been completely in, fully in support of" the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was identical to the Illinois act, and received unanimous approval in the U.S. Senate in 2002.
How often did this particular hospital's comfort room get used? Stanek's former employer typically performs only 15 to 20 labor-induced abortions out of more than 4,000 deliveries each year. Of the 15 to 20, only possibly four or five babies are born alive.[1]
Merelli also seems to be in denial that the governor of Virginia recently stated that withholding such medical care should be an acceptable practice, if so decided by "a discussion between the physicians and the mother."
Annalisa Merelli goes on to say, "An abortion is performed with the intention of ending a pregnancy, so there are no survivors." What kind of logic is that? The Easter Sunday bombing of St. Anthony's Shrine was performed with the intention of killing everyone inside, so by Merelli's twisted logic, there are no survivors. I'm sorry to inform you; there are in fact survivors of that and similar bombings.
I doubt these facts will change your mind. You seem very stubborn, and hostile to editors who try to get you to incorporate facts into your worldview. Now that your cited criticism of the term "abortion survivor" has been shown to be factually incorrect and illogical, it's beyond common sense that "abortion survivor" is the most unbiased, neutral and straightforward way to refer to a person who has survived an abortion. You continue to display incredible bias when you promote the fiction that Gianna Jessen, Amy Charlton, Sarah Smith, Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Heidi Huffman, Christelle Morrison, Melissa Ohden, Claire Culwell and others did not survive the attempts to end their lives. As such, you have no business editing articles about abortion.Novel compound (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
^"Amended abortion policy is cold comfort – Nurse's objection to leaving babies to die gets her fired". Chicago Sun-Times. September 8, 2001.
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
You added the small font size to an article and then cite your own edit as a counterargument to MOS? This is not a valid rationale to revert my edit. If you have problem with the MOS, discuss it on the MOS talk page. Do not edit war to retain unnecessarily small font size, thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRC
Read WP:DRC again, as you have misunderstood its meaning. You may not remove content (that is not a clear violation of Wikipedia policy) from someone else's Talk page, even if you put it there, without their approval, and if they restore it you may not remove it again. General IzationTalk 03:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I see is that Ss112 asked you to use the article Talk page for further discussion of the issue, not their personal Talk page ("Stop bothering me with this and just go on about seeking consensus. I don't want another two paragraphs here"), and archived the discussion up to that point. You proceeded to add additional comments on their Talk page, ignoring their request as well as the notice that "The ... discussion is closed. Please do not modify it." Ss112 then removed the additional comments, at which point you attempted to remove all of your contributions from their Talk page, leaving what appeared to be a historical record of Ss112 effectively talking to themselves.
You do not have the right to remove anything other than your own comments from another editor's Talk page, and then only if others have not responded to your comments. It really doesn't matter what you "want". The basic principle is that the user whose user Talk page is being used for the discussion gets to say what is added to or removed from it, not you, and you should respect the decisions of other editors in that regard, as they should respect your decisions concerning your user Talk page. If that's not acceptable to you, you should refrain from posting on other editors' user Talk pages at all. General IzationTalk 19:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Economy
Stockpiling uranium is not a reaction to oman incidents
You should know that
And you should not remove america's name from suspects
It's suspects
It doesn't say perpetrators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.255.64.216 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reaction to heightened tensions, you can read the news. Also, who has officially blamed the US? As opposed to the serious accusations made against Iran. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 15:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Iran announced uranium stockpiling last month
I don't know why do you keep calling it a blame
When no body knows who did it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.254.221.49 (talk)
Hello. The original writing credits order I added to Panini (song) was the one found on the Spotify app (and coincidentally happened to be alphabetical). Can you tell me which source the order you added is from and why you think it should be preferred.--NØ17:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Part of the 2019 Gulf of Oman Incidents" category in infoboxes
Hello, I added "Part of the 2019 Gulf of Oman Incidents" to the infoboxes of the two articles, but you removed it due to the link being a disambiguation page. I was thinking of creating a new page, but I don't know if that would be considered redundant given that all of the necessary info is within the two articles. Adding "Part of" formally links the two events. And they are indeed connected. Legit War Articles (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Template:Lil Nas X requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --woodensuperman10:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
June 2019
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Template:Lil Nas X, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. --woodensuperman11:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. As creator of the page, you are not permitted to remove speedy deletion templates yourself. That is clear on the template itself, and in the notification placed in the section above, but you removed it anyway. I gave you the benefit of the doubt with a low-level warning, but you then ignored that too, and removed it once more. Please make yourself aware of our policies or guidelines, otherwise you risk a block for this kind of behavior. --woodensuperman11:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Date formats
Hi. I see you have started adding the Rolling Stone charts to articles. Please use a consistent date format; the articles you copied the reference to were all American topics, and mdy date format was already being used for basically all references. Also, Rolling Stone is not a publisher itself, so it should be used in work= in references, and entries in that parameter are automatically italicised. If you have to italicise what's in the publisher= parameter, it should most likely be in work= or website=. Thanks. Ss11202:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please use edit summaries when reverting, or otherwise undoing the changes made by, other users. We have no way of knowing why our changes are incorrect otherwise. Creating an article or template does not give someone the right to make unexplained reversions on it. People doing such actions are the ones who need to "chill". Thanks.—NØ04:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: I'm not saying it gives me the right to do that 😂 That's why I say chill when you write stop exerting ownership. I just find it weird you got that impression. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 04:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the mood swing and mini meltdown. I'm kind of stressed as I've just started going to a new college recently. But yeah it would be better to have an edit summary explain what I did wrong when I am reverted, lol. Have a good day.--NØ12:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for writing up WP:RSCHART. However, users are getting all up in arms about it now, claiming on Me!, for example, that by not putting that it reached number 1, we are "sabotaging Taylor's chart performance" [1]. Hilarious. Ss11210:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you made an edit here to On a Roll without explaining why. As Miley Cyrus is the actual artist who performed the song, I'm confused as to why you removed this from the parameter. Could you provide an explanation? — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)12:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: The song is credited to "Ashley O", not "Miley Cyrus as Ashley O". Same reason for Hannah Montana singles its not credited to "Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 17:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation; it's much appreciated. I'm sure it's obvious to you but it didn't occur to me as I don't edit music articles much. (And by the way, you were a letter off with that ping.) — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)23:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at LGBT symbols 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 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 you being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Reason: Insisting on more sources than WP:RELIABLE guidelines and WP:VERIFY compliance. Pyxis Solitaryyak01:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyxis Solitary: You are engaged in an edit war too. Time stamps will also show that as I just continued to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, you came here to give me a 'nice' warning. Please, do not have me have to warn you about WP:3RR when you should know better too. Also with baseless comments such as Nice4What continues to twist this article into his personal preference, it's your bias that becomes apparent.
@Slatersteven: I'm not sure how you arrived at this conversation, but... Many edits =/= many reverts. My apologizes that I didn't consolidate all my changes into a singular edit, but you should be aware that a talk page conversation has already been started to end this dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 15:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]]. Note a revert is any edit that undoes another users edits, not matter how long they have been there, but this is being harsh (a bit). This on top of the other reverts since the 6th (at least) means you are edit warring. Thus I am telling you that if this continues it is not going to look good.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, I'm reminding you that a conversation at the talk page already started... and also a conversation at the RS noticeboard that I started, which you might be familiar with.
Also, if you're interested: (1) is just a revision history that points to nothing, (2) did not "undo" any edit, I updated the gallery per the article LGBT flags, (3) was the removal of unreliable sources, though I did change the flag file, and (4) somebody made this contentious edit though the talk page conversation has started. You are warning me, which is kind and all, but you need to look at the article's recent page history and read the talk pages – the warning personally comes off as silly and maybe a bit late too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, my last word, being right is never a justification for an edit war (which (if you read wp:editwar does not have to breach 3RR, as long as there is a pattern of revert-revert.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alt cover on Erys
Even though I've already replied to you on the talk page of Erys, just letting you know I've reverted ToranL7231 and warned them about further edit warring. They look to be one of these infrequent contributors to Wikipedia who aren't fully aware of our policies and guidelines, let alone 3RR. If they continue, I will ask an admin to intervene or you can. I agree with you—years ago I thought similar cover artworks were allowed until I was told by multiple editors they weren't, and now I actually agree that they don't really warrant inclusion. Ss11206:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm loving that you uploaded a sample of Carti's iconic verse from "Pissy Pamper" with timed text, but doesn't he say "They tryna be cray" or something to that effect at the beginning? At least, that's what Genius and these other lyrics sites say. But honestly, with that baby voice, we may never know hahahaha. Ss11206:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source for So Much Fun, mention at Young Thug discography?
Hi. What is So Much Fun and where did you find news about it being an upcoming release by Young Thug? Just a note, when you create redirects, they should be mentioned (and ideally sourced) at the target article, otherwise they can be nominated for deletion (and frequently are). Ss11208:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us event screenshot.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us event screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
I'm guessing based on your comment so far that you're fairly unfamiliar with the expectation not to edit war and follow WP:ONUS policy, so please give the above guidance a read. So far, you have tried to repeatedly reinsert disputed content in direct violation of ONUS policy. I'm not sure why you think that's ok, but this is your opportunity to undo your revert and actually try to gain consensus on the talk page. WP:TAGTEAMING is also not ok, and you should have been well aware from the current talk page and edit summaries that you should not have revert the content back in. Please remember to follow policy in the future instead of edit warring so other editors don't have to clean it up like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I left the template because you are blatantly edit warring while actively violating policy. I typically prefer to assume the presence of a WP:BELLYBUTTON, and that template gives guidance on what to do for editors that seem unsure of expectations in content disputes. The template also applies to any edit warring, not just 3RR. In my case, I ran up to 3RR, but I'm also trying to get editors to follow normal talk page expectations instead of edit warring as you're currently doing. It shouldn't be like pulling teeth to ask you to follow policy like that. In addition to edit warring content in without gaining consensus, you seem to be acting very rashly such as your recent edits on my talk page, so please, please slow down.
I'm also not blanking anything. That was content that repeatedly didn't gain consensus, and anyone is free to remove it under WP:ONUS policy. You, however, cannot repeatedly reinsert it. It's right there in the policy you've chosen to disregard. The article was a stub before I nominated it, and I nominated it because of the state of the subject, not the other way around of removing content because I nominated it as some have tried to say.
This is supposed to be really basic. When bits of content don't get consensus, you use the talk page and don't reinsert it until there's consensus on something. You can't pull of a stunt of edit warring the content back in until it piles up and blame me for having to remove such a large chunk of edits each time. Content is supposed to build up through consensus, not through who can "win" an edit war, so it's really time to knock that off. Again, are you going to undo your revert that directly violated policy? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no, that's entirely inappropriate. You joined in with others to edit war it back in even though there had already been ample caution doing so was in direct violation of policy. Gaming like that is specifically called out in the edit warring guidance, so please actually read it. You can't claim something like "I only had one revert" to justify edit warring like that. Now you're engaging in battleground behavior and poisoning the well comments on the talk page as you're well aware were way off base by now. It's very clear from your actions you are not going to engage in good faith at the current time, so again, are you going to slow, undo your revert, strike your personal comments, and use the talk page normally without edit warring the content back in? Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43: I didn't "join in with others" deliberately – look at my first talk page comment, where I stated I didn't even realize other editors had warned you already! (Read: I'm seeing now that a talk page discussion about your edits has already started.) I think you might be overthinking my edits and taking them to be targeted personally against you. I want you to know that that's not the case. Also, if you can highlight the personal comments I've made, I'll gladly strike them out; I don't think I said anything bad, but please let me know if I'm mistaken. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 22:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At best, you're being way too haphazard and escalating the situation. However, you had to have seen the edit summaries specifically saying it would violate policy to restore the edits in order to revert it back in. There's no way around that. The whole poisoning the well thing and aspersions are mostly based in your AFD/"conflict of interest" question posing. Regardless of actual intent, you're acting disruptively and projecting it back to me when I've asked you to follow policy. With that said, you've been made more than aware your revert as disruptive as this time, and you are purposely not undoing your revert. You can't have it both ways if you want to gain consensus for something. Are you going to follow onus policy and remove it? Otherwise, it's just WP:GAMING, and anyone is free to remove the edit at this point. I'm trying to give you some guidance here to try to help you with editing, so please slow down and really read the relevant policies instead of dismissing them. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43:WP:BRD is the policy you're choosing to actively ignore. You've ignored the talk page conversation about what should be removed from the article, so it's difficult to assume you're acting in good faith. I'm also not the only editor who has pointed out this "conflict of interest". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 22:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't ignore BRD. Again, actually read it. When the bold edit was made in the content additions and they were disputed, that was the time to engage in discussion, not WP:BRR as you participated in. I already participated in the talk page quite a bit, and despite that, you didn't engage and went on reverting the content back in again at the time. You're doing exactly the things that guidance says not to do and blaming me for trying to work with those setbacks. Time to knock it off. Again, please read that guidance, undo your revert, and participate in actual consensus building. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingofaces43:Actual consensus building would be participating in the talk page conversation you've chosen to ignore. I did in fact bring the matter to the talk page and went over every revision proposed by you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Thanks. Just made my last revert, well aware of WP:3RR. Conversation has already started at talk page; my only concern is IP users or newly-registered accounts changing the album type despite the ongoing discussion. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 17:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I forgot about the initial edit. Maybe shouldn't have phrased it as a revert. I've gone ahead and self-reverted my last edit. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 17:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Old Town Road Final Remix.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Old Town Road Final Remix.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Old Town Road Remix Vinyl Cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Old Town Road Remix Vinyl Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello. I have provided sources that support the notability of the Black Panther remix (production and reception information), and it has remained unchallenged in the article for around 9 months (and this article has regularly been edited and updated since then). You made a bold edit to remove this established content, and I disagreed with that change and reverted you. Per WP:BRD, the onus is now on you to start a discussion to gain support for your bold change. I respectfully ask that you self-revert your most recent edit at the article and start the talk page discussion yourself. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Big Day Album
Sorry for making the same edit multiple times. I made an account just to add those two credits. I didn't realize that they were actively removed for not having sources when I added them the second time. I am new and learning how to participate and execute good practices. I don't have any sources, though I have looked online for them. I am confident that what I wrote is correct. If they are shown to be untrue, then I will be happy to see them removed, but in the mean time I believe the credits should stay as they were made in good faith. Thank you for your contributions to the page and Wikipedia as a whole. JamieBenoir (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamieBenoir: No problem, and let me know if you need any help! Unfortunately, we can't keep those vocalists without reliable sources. Otherwise, it would just be original research. If there is no doubt that Keith David is on the album, then there's no doubt that a reliable source will report on it. Also, we could wait for the album's full credits to be released. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 21:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nice4What: Thanks for teaching me a bit about the standards of Wikipedia. I will now scour the internet to prove my sources! Apologies for messing up your talk page also! JamieBenoir (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nice4What: See my most recent edit regarding Mike Servin. Should that go in the Samples section considering it is sourced? And now that the Notes section exists for unsourced credits, can I put my two previous credits in that section with the caveat they need sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBenoir (talk • contribs)
@JamieBenoir: I moved Mike Servin to the "Samples" part before seeing this message. Yes, you could always add the vocalists along with a {{cn}} tag, but you'd have to expect it to be removed by any other editor. It's probably best to search for credits for the skits rather than add those vocalists in the mean time, in my opinion.
@Nice4What: You are too fast for me, you already moved the Mike Servin credit. Thank you once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBenoir (talk • contribs)
@JamieBenoir: The song writers and producers don't change. They are what they are. The Notes and Samples sections are supplementary to those credits. Don't add people to the song writing credits just because they are sample. For example, I see you added John Legend as a songwriter for the intro. He is not credited as such, so we don't add him. He is also an uncredited vocalist, so he belongs under "Notes" and not "Samples". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 22:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was emulating what you did with Mike Servin. After you edited my edit which added him, you can see he appears in the Writer(s) section of "We Go High". Is that a mistake? Ok, so uncredited vocalists go under notes, and samples go under samples. Got it, my mistake. Also, the fader article does credit randy newman, and ari lennox. The article is missing DJ scheme, but it aligns with several other articles I've found. Is it not up to the journalist to ensure accuracy - not us? JamieBenoir (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamieBenoir: I've added the comedians using this citation. Mike Servin is a credited songwriter in the official credits, so the little note indicates that he received this credit because he is sampled. Not all samples receive songwriter credit however, like Kaori Mizuhashi not receiving credit for Navi being sampled. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 23:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello
There is an update that you have done to Pete Olson's seat to mark his retirement. If you could update it for Paul Mitchell's seat in Michigan's 10th district as well as he too announced his retirement yesterday. I'd do it myself but I lack the tools to do so. Thank you. Wollers14 (talk) 00:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wollers14: Updated. Please let me know if there's any more updates. By the way, I will be moving this talk page discussion to my Wikipedia talk page soon so I can keep all my message together. Nice4What (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what, another retirement this time it's Mike Conway of Texas's 11th District. Sorry for not responding but yeah I'll come here for the messages. Wollers14 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, I saw the update for the map with Sean Duffy. He is NOT retiring but he is leaving Congress on the 23rd of September before the 2020 elections. After the 23rd mark it as a vacant seat. Wollers14 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man sorry for the late response when Duffy leaves show his district as dark grey to mark a vacant seat after the 23rd but for now keep his district the same color as if he’s retiring. Also there’s another retirement this time it’s John Shimkus of Illinois 15th district. Wollers14 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png listed for discussion
@ColorTheoryRGB: The previous version you uploaded was 240x240 which is a lot smaller than what's permitted for fair use. I uploaded the 313*313 version but didn't realize there was an explicit tag, my mistake! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 22:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Please request page moves; don't move them to incorrect names first
You should have requested Truth Hurts (disambiguation) be moved first, instead of attempting to move it to Truth Hurts, which already existed, and then obviously settling for "Truth Hurts (" because you couldn't do so and calling it a "technical error". Check out the desired page title in future first and then request the move at WP:RM/TR before moving it anywhere—that's the best course of action. It's not like this was urgent. I don't require a ping if you reply. Thanks. Ss11219:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and thank you for leaving this message (and moving the page too). Thought it would be uncontroversial and that I could move it to "Truth Hurts (" and then to "Truth Hurts" but that didn't work. Was worried requesting such a move would lead to a long and stalled conversation as seen for other articles. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 19:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Old Town Road Diplo and RM remix.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Drake Care Package cover.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Drake Care Package cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
What is the source for your exact timings (20 seconds, 30 seconds)? Not finding that at the cited sources. "Less than a minute" is plenty exact. 20:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nice4What, I have reverted your change to my edit on this page RE: the remix of "Old Town Road".....I don't like to do reverts and have added an explanation in edit summary and asked that we discuss any further changes at the Talk page for the article. Thanks and sorry I disagree.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bonnielou2013: Per WP:ONUS, I'm going to revert again and let's use the talk page to reach a consensus on inclusion. For starters, the song is a country-trap song that happens to feature a K-pop artist. Also, it was never designated as the lead remix on the Billboard charts, so it's a bit misleading to people reading the article who may be lead to believe that a K-pop song topped the charts for eighteen weeks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 02:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 "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 deleted 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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ...discospinstertalk18:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Dispute Resolution
I have mentioned you as a participate in a dispute resolution here. Thank you for your time and I apologize if anything I have said comes off as rough. I'm only trying to resolve things amicably for everyone. --Emma (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions alerts, please read
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
You know about 1RR already, since you were blocked for a different 1RR violation earlier this year, so I'm not sure I'm following... El_C02:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 1RR nine months ago on a page placed under different sanctions. Yes, if I kept edit warring on the same sanctioned topic I could understand, but why would I purposefully engage in an edit war after editing abortion-related articles for weeks now? My point being, had I just been told I violated 1RR, I would've self-reverted and left it at that. I had no chance to even respond in the time between being reported and being blocked by you. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 03:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, and I, myself, would have offered you the chance to self-revert, but it was too late. Someone else had already reverted you by the time I did my rounds at AN3. El_C03:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I have been editing abortion-related articles for weeks and it wasn't my intention to edit war or violate 1RR. I didn't receive a warning about 1RR on my talk page and didn't have the chance to respond in the time between being reported and being blocked. Had I been aware, I would've self-reverted and left the matter at that. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Sorry, I thought there was a specific alert issued, but I misread the other ones. Unblocked with apologies. El_C03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you create redirects, there should be a mention at the target article. You created a redirect pointing to Pusha T discography but did not add anything there. Please make sure there is in future, or your redirects can be nominated for deletion. Thanks. Ss11213:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remix singles
Why are you speaking as if a "remix" is a special type of single and that the infobox should have a valid type= value called "remix"? The remix of "Ransom" is still a single first and foremost. We should not be mismatching colour bars; there is rarely a reason to do this, and this is not an exception. Remix covers are often included in infoboxes in this way, and we don't list "type=song" for those so I don't know why you're trying to do that on "Ransom". Sometimes the things you take issue with or your reasonings are very odd and non-standard. Ss11217:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See "Old Town Road" and how the infobox for the Billy Ray Cyrus remix has a different color and a parameter set as 'remix single'. That's the reasoning for coloring the remix a different color, to keep consistent with the parameters of the Infobox song template. Also, sometimes the things you take issue with or your reasonings are very odd and non-standard? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 17:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, it was added as a type to Template:Infobox song, but I have no idea what the local consensus for Old Town Road is or has been, and that example is a separate infobox entirely. I'm not sure everybody would be inclined to agree to use a type to give a different colour bar if it were in the same infobox. And yes, I don't think this is the first time you've taken issue with something that wouldn't ordinarily be an issue. Ss11218:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was hopefully for an example, kinda like you holding up the featuring artist credits and moving The Lost Tapes 2 based on cover art lol. But all's good. No need for mismatching colors over at the "Ransom" infobox. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 18:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten all about those until now. But let's see..."holding up"? Looks like I literally commented all of once at Talk:The Lost Tapes 2, but wow, my one comment must have really "held up" that page move I guess. Who knew I had such an impact? Also, IIRC, I reverted you at The London (song) once or maybe twice, and only replied on the talk page because you kept pinging me. Your opinion that cover art means nothing is exactly one of the things I meant by "odd". And yes, mismatching colours as a result of different types is something we generally don't do unless it's an exception, so there's no need to say it like it's some unheard of thing or an individual concern I have about the pwetty infobox colours not aligning; it's what's generally done in cases like this. Ss11219:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on using cover art is obviously not that odd considering the outcome of discussions on both The Lost Tapes 2 and "The London". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 19:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think comparing a stylistic change to the infobox on "Ransom" is comparable to wanting an article's or credit on a song to change, but...evidently you seem to, so let's examine that. You had two editors agree with you on The Lost Tapes 2, and an editor changed the credit on The London (song) without consensus—there was no consensus for said change on its talk page, so it's not like either were "debates" that you won. That being said, if there's anything I've learned from my time on Wikipedia, it's that editors can prevail with their own personal and/or "odd" approaches if they are persistent enough. If that's what people need to feel better in their lives, awesome. Not me lmao. Ss11219:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editors can prevail with their own personal and/or "odd" approaches if they are persistent enough. Point being that the same can be said about you relying on your own interpretation of album covers. (Again, do I have to mention blond/Blonde?) I'm not saying I "won" either of those "debates", just that your reliance on cover art is odd in the same way as you described my approaches. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks♥) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except I didn't prevail with an odd opinion because I never particularly cared much in the first place about either of those, so...not a great comparison. Look, I'm not going to continue to debate whose opinion is more "odd"...but you really seem to have taken it quite an issue with my use of the word. Ss11220:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Kanye West The Storm.ogg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Kanye West The Storm.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
