Once you are finished updating the citations to Wikipedia standards, remove the "cleanup-link rot" cleanup template from the top of the article page. Thanks!-- NewzealanderA (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to use the toolserver, but my internet is too slow atm [1]Zoeblackmore (talk) 18.40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misha B - SBTV
SBTV videos aren't music videos because they are unprofessional footage and 'street-shot' freestyle raps. That performance of Misha's is not a music video at all, it's a freestyle rap. Not a music video. For example, Bow Wow performed a freestyle wrap on SBTV in early 2011 and it does not appear in his Music Video discography because the freestyle raps Misha and him did aren't music they are releasing. Just a freestyle rap, not a musical release of their own. Rui7890109:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Current ones look like they are suspect flickerwashing and are likely to be deleted. I have written to the flickr account holder asking him for verification that they are his and published correctly under a creative commons licence....Zoebuggie☺whispers21:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've asked a couple of users on Flickr if they mind changing the licenses on their images of Misha for you. - JuneGloomTalk00:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lovely Flickr has kindly changed the licence of their image of Misha. I've uploaded it to Commons and added it to the article. I think a closer crop could be made, so I'll go to the graphics lab now and put in a request. - JuneGloomTalk18:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very good suggestion, I always think I am going to be quick, but when I save I see I need to improve. ...um what do you call someone who keeps making the same mistake :) ...I will endeavor to use preview in future.
Urban contemporary? yes it is a radio format and my error, is the a music genre close to it, Misha B is an 'urban' artist who mixes/combines/experiments so many genres in her music...Zoebuggie☺whispers01:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I not really sure I can answer that genre question. I would suggest however, if you are displeased with the genres listed, it might be a good idea to start a new thread on the article's talk page to poll others who regularly edit there. As a group, you can all work together to form a genre consensus. Finding good reliable sources for music genres can be really helpful to the discussion and greatly improve the article as well. As a rule however, genres really shouldn't be changed without prior discussion or providing sources. Best of luck with all your future edits. Stay well ! -- WikHead (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! You've certainly done your homework, and I'm hoping it pays off with lots of user feedback from those who regularly watch and edit that article. With all those references, I would assume that someone could greatly expand the "Musical style and influences" section. I noticed that you've added "Grime" to the genres, which should be changed to "grime" (lower-case G) per Template:Infobox musical artist#genre... small matter. I also noticed that your list on the talk page includes the word "indie", which can often be a very difficult term to work with. It could mean indie rock, indie pop, indie punk, indie folk, etc... it could also refer to independently published music or in some cases "music of India". Be sure to specify your flavour. Good luck, and happy editing! ! -- WikHead (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Puffypeacock ;) ...it really would be useful if you followed Wikhead's excellent advice about 'clogging up' the edit history of Misha B. It will also be of great help to leave a brief edit summary, or mark your changes as 'minor' where appropriate. Keep up the good work! Sionk (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
❀◕‿◕❀ しⓄし ;) I am trying to use preview as a rule, set my prefs up so it naturally defaults to preview, but sometimes i dont spot my silly errors. Also I appreciate and know you are right about edit summaries, i got lazy...Zoebuggie☺whispers23:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Misha B
Yikes, dispute resolution is not really my area of expertise... and this particular case appears to have a rather long, complicated history. I think the smartest advice I could give you, is to continue seeking help in the venues and from users who specialise in these types of cases. However, if you do decide to take your concerns to formal mediation, it's very important to carefully read all the documentation before you proceed, and make certain that you have completed all the steps, suggestions, and recommendations beforehand. Formal mediation is a very serious place to be, and cases should only be brought there when all else has failed. I'm sorry if my reply seems unhelpful, but I'd rather steer you in safe direction than accidentally misinform. I wish you the best of luck with getting your matters resolved. Have yourself a great day, and happy editing. -- WikHead (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I'm afraid this is not my forte as medical articles don't tend to have too much dispute, and if one does I tend to stay away from it! If you are acting respectfully and following all guidelines and policies regarding neutrality, POV and referencing then I think you have little to fear. Per the dispute resolution you posted, revert wars must not happen and all parties must agree to this. If people don't agree to this, try and get an administrator or an official mediator to step in and help enforce the no-revert policy. Whilst you're all going to have bias and hour own POV, try and remain respectful and open-minded to your opposition's views. All the best, I'm sorry I can't help you more. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 13:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have experience of dispute resolution, but I don't have much time at the moment, so another person would be better at the moment. Besides, I'm puzzled by why you've chosen me and how many other editors you've spammed with this request, and who is helping already. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for your response. One of the editors above had helped me on the dispute resolution earlier, the other had given some very good advice. But I admit that on the page I found yourself, I was not sure how to proceed and thus I choose a few editors with experience in dispute resolution, hoping to get one bite. It was very late and
Wow, impressive work expanding the See No Evil article! Looks very useful and comprehensive! One of the advantages is that we now have a list of redlinks and maybe there will be enough information to create articles about some of the more notable participants... Sionk (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the Misha B article isn't complying with the guidelines of manual of style or summary style. A whole section is not required for one single as there is a whole other page dedicated to this and old and future projects don't need separation. Thanks. Jennie | ☎21:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to contact you :) Firstly I wanted say I really like most of your improvements. I do think its a good thing to seperate past and present from the future. Part of the problem with Home Run is that you deleted the lot, without even a link. Home Run page went through AfD process/survived so that was why it survived on this page last month. I can not see a breach of the manual of style. Summary style is more debateable...as the is a sub article. Most establish artists have sections on their page about their music even when its discussed elsewhere....Zoebuggie☺whispers21:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it easier if I reply here? :) Sorry! I didn't even intend to delete any of your edits initially, I made a minor edit and saved an earlier revision of the page and didn't mean to delete any of the stuff about Home Run. However, a whole section on a single isn't required. And breaking down a year into two sections (of which, not a lot has gone on) isn't really needed either. Summary style needs to be practiced here; it is understandable how whole sections have formed this way as the artist's career is new, but things like Home Run need to be talked about in much less detail. Jennie | ☎21:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...my brain is trying to grasp talkback. Again more great additions. I should have said accident rather than mention vandalism. I still think the year ought to be split atm between 2012: Why Hello World and Home Run'Homerun is more notable than the mix tape and 2012:Future projects but I have been battling against another editor who supports your layout....Zoebuggie☺whispers22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine! It's quite confusing :) I understand you point but Home Run being more notable (and it is), but as the Mixtape and debut album are larger (in terms of content), they form the article sub-heading. Her upcoming projects definitely deserve their own paragraph, but a whole sub-heading is probably unnecessary.
I changed the heading to Home Run...maybe less content but still more notable. I got another change ...church in the wild was maybe not best one to keep to illustrate point ...Zoebuggie☺whispers22:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I'm still not sure, but you are definitely right about it being more notable. I suppose it will be eventually changed to her debut album title whenever that is released. Jennie | ☎22:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thats been my main arguement about the layout with Rui.... the page is live and will evolve. Great contributions Jennie ... now maybe someone will assess it...Zoebuggie☺whispers22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if she is releasing a new single from the debut album, the title "Home Run" wouldn't encompass this. Someone else has changed it to "Debut album" which I think is more suiting, what do you think? Jennie | ☎22:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reread your last comment and now better understand your point, the is 5 weeks before Do You think of Me is released....then the heading will have to change you are right...would naming both singles be to wordy? I better end my reverts today at least...Zoebuggie☺whispers23:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both the release of the mixtape and studio debut album are sourced independently and encompass the whole content of that section. I don't understand your persistence on changing it, just because "Home Run" entered the UK Charts doesn't mean it needs a subheading devoted to it. Jennie | ☎14:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the gesture, it's appreciated :) thatgrapejuice certainly isn't a reliable source, although, luckily, each statement that had a reference from thatgrapejuice usually had another one that was reliable and supported it. Jennie | ☎15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
;)Yup, safety in numbers is my policy just in case a site I thought was ok turns out bad. Sometimes hard to spot a genuine magazine/music news blog-style website from an individuals :) (mind you, some individual enthusiast's blogs in context might have a better idea than some supposed reliable source, with a paid hack :) but rules is rules)46.208.73.74 (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
October 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Misha B. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Jennie | ☎21:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, As I've explained in the edit summary, claims about somebody's appearance or personality don't form part of a "Musical style or influence" section. As explained by the title, musical style refers to the person as a musician, their vocal range, genre, abilities (like Misha's to rap). Thanks. —Jennie | ☎21:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
must admit the two impersonal and unnecessary comments above wound me up... i believe that this section is best place for recording that she has been described as a diva, the petite and down to earth puts it into context....Zoebuggie☺whispers21:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Zoeblackmore. You have new messages at Jennie--x's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Misha B (Subsequent use)
Hello, if you've got any time could you offer some input over here, I've started a discussion on which subsequent use of Misha Bryan's name we should use in the article. —Jennie | ☎17:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I bat that one back to you, what gives you higher authority to place an artist in a music genre or not, what sourcessource do you have for R &B and Hip Hop over Soul. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Where does your Consensus spring from Thank you....Zoebuggie☺whispers18:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was not the user who changed the article to include "R&B" and "Hip-hop", so I, naturally, was not involved in "genre changes", I think they have stood for months (a year?) before I began editing on this article and I have nothing to do with their inclusion. You are very welcome to challenge the consensus of these genres on the article talk page, although several professional reviews from journalists refer to these genres in relation to the release of her two singles. What I am doing is challenging your inclusion of soul - where are the reliable sources? —Jennie | ☎19:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Jennie | ☎19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I understand now. You can't edit the page Misha B because it has been protected to prevent you edit warring any further. You can still edit the article's talkpage and any other unprotected article on Wikipedia. I'm closing your unblock request as there is nothing to action. Yunshui雲水11:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the big block of text
You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia
You are still able to view pages, but you are now not able to edit, move, or create them.
Editing from 83.170.64.0/18 has been blocked (disabled) by Materialscientist for the following reason(s):
Banned proxys.svg The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy. To prevent abuse, these proxies may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you believe you are not running an open proxy, the most likely cause is that another customer from your ISP who was previously assigned this IP address was running an open proxy. If this is the case, please request to be unblocked using the unblock template, or request administrator attention using admin! and indicate you are caught by an open proxy block. More rarely, your network equipment or that of your service provider may be misconfigured or compromised by malicious software (such as a virus). In some cases, this can be remedied by logging into the secure server. For more information, see the Wikiproject on Open Proxies and Wikipedia:Open proxies.
your-freedom.de
This block has been set to expire: 10:34, 13 April 2015.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Help please Iam still blocked. Block covers the whole of Wikipedia with an end date 10:34, 13 April 2015. I do not understand why I have been blocked, I have done nothing intentionally to break any rule? ...Zoebuggie☺whispers12:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
Apparently no longer blocked; the block noted above applies to a range that has been identified as an open proxy. To avoid those blocks, make sure that you are not connected to any proxy services to connect to the internet. If you are still unable to edit, please post a new request. Hersfold(t/a/c)21:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lolol...easy done, also easy for me to take it wrongly...thank you for putting me at my ease. i reverted your photographer edit, because she used the attribution licence, please correct if this done another way...Zoebuggie☺whispers17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have included her name on the photograph page itself, is that not enough? She isn't relevant in the caption as she isn't notable (e.g. Lady Gaga photographed by Steve Klein would perhaps be). I'm not sure either way. —Jennie | ☎18:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your question
At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Working with fellow editors.2C you asked, "Is it normal for fellow editors to be so ruthless." (I'm answering here, rather than there, because I'm afraid you may no longer be watching that discussion.) You may be aware that the most basic principles of Wikipedia are set out in the Five Pillars. Ruthless editing is so common here that the third pillar concludes with, "all of your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." (Emphasis added.) Yes, it can be pretty rough here and it's sometimes hard to assume good faith, but it's worth it, in my opinion. Hang in there, Zoe. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I had used X rather than S where I asked my question, to have made it more anonymous. I honestly did have the feeling of being personally got at, and it was causing me stress. However at least 2 editors have reassured me that 'ruthless' re-editing was very normal and I feel better now....Zoebuggie☺whispers13:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, as I've said before on the article's Talk page, I want to make the Misha B article better. I bear no malice to you or Misha B. But sometimes 'less is more' and a succinct, balanced article does more credit to Misha B and to the reputation of Wikipedia. You're always welcome to leave a message on my Talk page if you think I'm being to harsh or blunt to you. You've made many well-intentioned, positive contributions over the last few months and I wouldn't want to discourage that aspect of your work. However, if you add poorly sourced pronouncements from Twitter, Facebook, fansites etc. you'll undoubtably face some disagreement from me or others. Bye for now! Sionk (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zoe. In case you are not aware, there is an upcoming campaign to improve coverage of LGBT-related topics on Wikipedia, culminating with an international edit-a-thon on June 21. See Wiki Loves Pride 2014 for more information. If you are interested, you might consider creating a page for a major city (or cities!) near you, with a list of LGBT-related articles that need to be created or improved. This would be a tremendous help to Wikipedia and coverage of LGBT culture and history. Thanks for your consideration, and please let me know if you have any questions! --Another Believer(Talk)18:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What?Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
When?June 2015
How can you help?
1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.
This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.
Hello Zoeblackmore! Follow the Wikimedia LGBT user group on Twitter at @wikilgbt for news, photos, and other topics of interest to LGBT Wikipedans and allies. Use #wikiLGBT to share any Wiki Loves Pride stuff that you would like to share (whether this month or any day of the year) or to alert folks to things that the LGBT Wikipedan community should know. RachelWex (talk)
For more information about Wiki Loves Pride, → click here ←.
RachelWex 19:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me for such a odd question, but why does your name show up green?
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.
We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.
.jpg){kind=logo}
