No edit summary Tags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Doggy54321 (talk | contribs) Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:Yes, and I've <s>warned</s> <u>blocked</u> them, too. I don't really care who's right, here. I just want the edit warring to stop. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
:Yes, and I've <s>warned</s> <u>blocked</u> them, too. I don't really care who's right, here. I just want the edit warring to stop. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
:When your block expires, if you want to return to this, I'd suggest bringing your specific concerns to the talk page. Rather than saying that the page is full of puffy, specify which words and phrases you have a problem with. Best [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
:When your block expires, if you want to return to this, I'd suggest bringing your specific concerns to the talk page. Rather than saying that the page is full of puffy, specify which words and phrases you have a problem with. Best [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC) |
||
==Please stop== |
|||
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Examples shown below are things that have irked not only me but other editors as well and have been shown multiple times. |
|||
# Stop violating [[WP:BRD]]. If you make a [[WP:BOLD|bold edit]] and it gets reverted, '''do not revert back'''. Per BRD (bold, revert, discuss cycle), if a bold edit (B) gets reverted (R), you are supposed to discuss (D) on either the article's talk page or the reverting user's talk page. You are '''not''' to revert again as that is starting an [[WP:EW|edit war]]. You are supposed to wait until an agreement is formed between editors is made and then make edits to the article accordingly. Example: when {{u|BawinV}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&diff=989829566&oldid=989824996 reverted your edit] to [[Folklore (Taylor Swift album)]], what you were supposed to do is leave a message on either [[Talk:Folklore (Taylor Swift album)]] or [[User talk:BawinV]]. You two would talk it out, and changes would be made to the page. |
|||
# Stop calling everything [[WP:PEA|puffery]]. Per that page, puffery is {{tq|words [that] are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information.}} I’m sorry, but last time I checked, sentences like {{tq|"Cardigan" placed first with 7.742 million streams, marking the biggest single-day play count for any song by a female artist released in 2020}} with a reliable source to back claims up '''isn{{'}}t''': using words without attribution, isn’t plainly summarizing information found in the source, and isn’t using words like "best", "greatest" or "most influential". Yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&diff=prev&oldid=990125482 you state otherwise.] You can’t call something "puffery" when you don’t like it. If you don’t like the phrase "[[User:Doggy54321]] likes cookies", then tough luck. There’s no puffery ("The best editor on Wikipedia", "the superior dessert, cookies"), there’s no NPOV issues, there’s no synthesis of material etc. But just the plain fact that you don’t like something isn’t grounds to revert on '''an encyclopedia'''. |
|||
# Stop [[WP:SYNTH|synthesizing material]]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&diff=prev&oldid=990125482 This is an example of synthesized material.] You include a source stating A, there is another source stating B and you somehow come to a conclusion of C and add that to the article. The source provided states that [[Ariana Grande]] was at a #1 spot on Spotify charts. That is our "A" source. The source in the article states that [[Taylor Swift]] was the {{tq|biggest single-day play count for any song by a female artist released in 2020}} (per Folklore article). That is our "B" source. Somehow, you came to the conclusion of "Grande broke the record that Swift broke a couple months prior" and added '''that''' to the article. That is the "C" example. Everything needs to have a citation, so to add that info back you must find a source that states that Grande broke that record. |
|||
# Stop adding [[WP:NPOV|non-NPOV]] comments into articles and edit summaries. It is very evident to both BawinV and I that you are not a fan of either Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift. Bawin brought this to my attention a couple days ago. We are both fans of both of the artists above and love them to death. But: we put those biases aside as we remind ourselves that this is a factual encyclopedia. Not everyone is gonna be a Swiftie or an Arianator. That’s natural. But the fact that we are both Swifties and Arianators is put aside while we are editing Wikipedia as we need to remain neutral (no opinion). I call it the two sides of myself. One side is the "OMG TAYLOR RELEASED A SONG OH MY GOSH YAYAYAYA" side of me (crazy, fangirl, biased etc), and another side of me is "Taylor Swift released a song today. The song was produced and written by... and is... long" (calm, educative, neutral etc). On Wikipedia, we must always stick to the latter of the two examples. You included. You can’t be saying opinionated stuff like {{tq|It's not like it's a relevant achievement anyway. Most of the 'records' that she did with this album will be surpassed anyway. It's really not that serious}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Folklore_(Taylor_Swift_album)&diff=prev&oldid=989872943], {{tq|It's very pointless tbh}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweetener_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=989872314], and {{tq|I don't think it's relevant enough to include this}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Positions_(album)&diff=prev&oldid=989355636]. |
|||
In conclusion, please fix your behaviour. If you have any questions, '''do ask them.''' Leave a message on this thread, I’ll respond. Please remember to be neutral, use talk pages, source content properly and stop calling everything puffery. Thank you for your time. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Doggy54321|D🐶ggy54321]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Doggy54321|let's chat!]])</sup> 00:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:22, 23 November 2020
Please read WP:POINT
Hi. Re this edit, I know it can be tempting when you disagree with something to try to make a point, but please read WP:POINT and understand that that kind of behaviour is nothing new to us here, and in fact just makes you look rather sulky and pouting. That's just advice, of course, make of it what you will. -- Begoon 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
March 2020
Your recent editing history at Ariana Grande 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)- Mirrored, your editing is veering into edit warring territory again. Please be sure to minimize reverting and instead work through disputes on talk pages, or you may be blocked for this again. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I was open to discussing the issues with the user, but he didn't respond well or not at all. I see that he has some problems with other editors. He was warned yesterday, and doesn't seem to take critism very well. I hope you can look it up. x Mirrored7 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- Mirrored, I’m aware of the situation. You’ve both been warned about edit warring. Bawin has agreed to discuss on the talk page. If you are deciding to pursue enforcing your stance, then you are required to participate in the discussion. That goes for both of you. You both have two options. Discuss on the talk page and get a WP:CONSENSUS on your stance. Or drop it, and let the other editor move forward with their stance. Anyone who continues to revert without discussing or a consensus is going to be blocked. So please participate, or say you’re dropping it. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Signatures
Probably better to ask at the WP:Teahouse or WP:Helpdesk, try the Teahouse first. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) Mirrored7 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
May 2020
Mirrored7, I would hope that you took on board what I replied to you on my talk page, but you clearly have not. Please refrain from vandalising articles through adding puffery e.g. "streaming pioneer". Also, do not remove information as your way of what I believe is your sort of "vengeance". The information added to Frank Ocean was supported by sources in the body of the article--you could take some "influence" from that. Isaacsorry (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
You are no better than me You don't seem to know Grande's music AT ALL. I will now undo my editing, and you your Frank Ocean page, and we will pretend nothing has happened. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Although I disagree with Isaacsorry in that I believe your edits are being done in good faith and are thus not vandalism, you need to stop edit warring right now. You are well past the 3RR. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It's good that you notice it. I only notice things that are not always treated objectively. This user complains about Grande's lead, but does the same with his favorite artists. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ariana discography
Am I missing out something here? I really want to know. Repeatedly pointing out not just by you that she is a streaming artist and that those worldwide numbers don't matter while at the time you are in a sales section that has noting to with nothing but sales.
If you can find other ww sales, add them up as well, it is welcomed to contribute. We work here with information that is available in the end.
Dhoffryn (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi! Why do you care so much? I clearly said that it doesn't make sense if we don't have sources for their other album sales either. As mentioned earlier, Grande is more of a streaming artist. Therefore, it would make more sense to include units (sales plus streaming), but they are no sources for this either. To get to the point, why only include worldwide sales of ONE album when if she's clearly not someone who sells albums anyway? Why not let it go completely then? Mirrored7 (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Even if there was a ww source of sales+streaming of her album it won't be included on the sales section of a discography of that page because it is ment only for pure sales (like it says sales, not adjusted sales, Nielsen report in detail breaks down sections about sales/adjusted sales/tracks/streams). And how can you say she does not sell albums when a reliable source IFPI publishes that in the streaming era she is a on a list pure sales on a global scale she is amongst top 10 seller list? Dhoffryn (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean in general, she's not an album seller. This is her first year in the top ten there. That's why we don't have any sources of the years before. Her certification and sales doesn't add up. She's one of the biggest artist right now, and these numbers simply don't show it. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hannah Lux Davis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Drake and Halsey. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. —valereee (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Hi! Do you notice that the specific user is doing exactly the same thing? (puffery, unconstructive edits on page of his favourite artist). I always try to reasonably clear it up with him, but he's doing an edit war out of it. I tried to clear it up on the Taylor Swift talk page, but there were no reactions. Many users disagree with his edits and consider them to be extremely annoying and not objective. I wouldn't write anything if I knew I would be in wrong.Mirrored7 (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, and I've
warnedblocked them, too. I don't really care who's right, here. I just want the edit warring to stop. —valereee (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC) - When your block expires, if you want to return to this, I'd suggest bringing your specific concerns to the talk page. Rather than saying that the page is full of puffy, specify which words and phrases you have a problem with. Best GirthSummit (blether) 11:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Examples shown below are things that have irked not only me but other editors as well and have been shown multiple times.
- Stop violating WP:BRD. If you make a bold edit and it gets reverted, do not revert back. Per BRD (bold, revert, discuss cycle), if a bold edit (B) gets reverted (R), you are supposed to discuss (D) on either the article's talk page or the reverting user's talk page. You are not to revert again as that is starting an edit war. You are supposed to wait until an agreement is formed between editors is made and then make edits to the article accordingly. Example: when BawinV reverted your edit to Folklore (Taylor Swift album), what you were supposed to do is leave a message on either Talk:Folklore (Taylor Swift album) or User talk:BawinV. You two would talk it out, and changes would be made to the page.
- Stop calling everything puffery. Per that page, puffery is
words [that] are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information.
I’m sorry, but last time I checked, sentences like"Cardigan" placed first with 7.742 million streams, marking the biggest single-day play count for any song by a female artist released in 2020
with a reliable source to back claims up isn't: using words without attribution, isn’t plainly summarizing information found in the source, and isn’t using words like "best", "greatest" or "most influential". Yet you state otherwise. You can’t call something "puffery" when you don’t like it. If you don’t like the phrase "User:Doggy54321 likes cookies", then tough luck. There’s no puffery ("The best editor on Wikipedia", "the superior dessert, cookies"), there’s no NPOV issues, there’s no synthesis of material etc. But just the plain fact that you don’t like something isn’t grounds to revert on an encyclopedia. - Stop synthesizing material. This is an example of synthesized material. You include a source stating A, there is another source stating B and you somehow come to a conclusion of C and add that to the article. The source provided states that Ariana Grande was at a #1 spot on Spotify charts. That is our "A" source. The source in the article states that Taylor Swift was the
biggest single-day play count for any song by a female artist released in 2020
(per Folklore article). That is our "B" source. Somehow, you came to the conclusion of "Grande broke the record that Swift broke a couple months prior" and added that to the article. That is the "C" example. Everything needs to have a citation, so to add that info back you must find a source that states that Grande broke that record. - Stop adding non-NPOV comments into articles and edit summaries. It is very evident to both BawinV and I that you are not a fan of either Ariana Grande or Taylor Swift. Bawin brought this to my attention a couple days ago. We are both fans of both of the artists above and love them to death. But: we put those biases aside as we remind ourselves that this is a factual encyclopedia. Not everyone is gonna be a Swiftie or an Arianator. That’s natural. But the fact that we are both Swifties and Arianators is put aside while we are editing Wikipedia as we need to remain neutral (no opinion). I call it the two sides of myself. One side is the "OMG TAYLOR RELEASED A SONG OH MY GOSH YAYAYAYA" side of me (crazy, fangirl, biased etc), and another side of me is "Taylor Swift released a song today. The song was produced and written by... and is... long" (calm, educative, neutral etc). On Wikipedia, we must always stick to the latter of the two examples. You included. You can’t be saying opinionated stuff like
It's not like it's a relevant achievement anyway. Most of the 'records' that she did with this album will be surpassed anyway. It's really not that serious
[1],It's very pointless tbh
[2], andI don't think it's relevant enough to include this
[3].
In conclusion, please fix your behaviour. If you have any questions, do ask them. Leave a message on this thread, I’ll respond. Please remember to be neutral, use talk pages, source content properly and stop calling everything puffery. Thank you for your time. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)