This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Don't adopt this tone with me. How can removing sourced material be justified as constructive? Should I assume that according to you, far too many people are inspired by Beyonce and you are just removing the least famous ones just to [trim the] overlong list of singers influenced by her? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I toyed with this as well, initially I put in "Superbowl" and then "Mrs. Carter Show World Tour", but then it got removed by other editors. I agree with them now, however, they are significant because that's what's happened so far in 2013, but not so in long-term of her biography, we would end up changing it anyway, so the most prominent project she does in that time scale should take hold (especially because she is first and foremost, a recording artist). — Jennie | ☎ 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Tone down the discussion of other editors' motives. I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but if you let that irritation cause you to lash out and insult other editors again, I'll block you.— Kww( talk) 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw your response on TBrandley's page, so let's make this explicitly clear: your edits constituted a personal attack on Jivesh. It doesn't matter how irritated you were. It doesn't matter how you feel about his motivations. Your comment placed you squarely in the wrong, and, if you repeat a comment like that, you will be blocked until you agree to stop.— Kww( talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Be careful not to edit war( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=540396420&oldid=540395258 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=540391506&oldid=540363856), either.— Kww( talk) 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Good. When huge pop stars like Adele and Rihanna say they're inspired by Beyoncé then it's definitely worth a mention in her bio article. 0z ( talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aichik, I've made a suggestion here that is aimed towards ending the current impasse. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, on the basis that biographies don't refer to it all, biography.com, for example, says how Rowland met Knowles' family following the former's move to Houston, and they became subsequent friends. — Jennie | ☎ 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article you provided linked to a blog which is not a reliable source, it also provides a minority view point and shouldn't be included. — Jennie | ☎ 23:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You didn't do much better with your link to the information on Blue Ivy's birth, but I fixed that.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not pushing a point of view: It's mere logic. Asking at Help desk, so just be patient. And you're not the best with GAR either.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I scanned the discussion you referenced, and found what seems to be endless bickering. As I said some time ago in reply to User:Bencherlite, I don't want to get involved. I think it would merely degenerate into me arguing pointlessly with fans. The truth is, I have no personal interest in Beyoncé or other pop divas of the moment. My point was that, in the grand scheme of things, these personalities don't merit anywhere near the wordage they get on Wiki. The current Beyoncé article runs to about 7,500 words -- too many! Sca ( talk) 15:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Heavy" is a loaded word, and does not help the neutrality of the GA. The Chicago Manual of Style is helpful for your grammar claim; "articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title.""articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title." — Jennie | ☎ 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I already showed you in my edits. The evidence that you took to be "original research" and now the fact that she had the opportunity to close the book but didn't with her doc.-- Aichik ( talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? ( talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea whether the editors are close to Quinn or not. As I remember, I said there is no disernable evidence of that. Frankly, it would be astounding if an article on a politician were not often edited by supporters, and sometimes staffers etc. I simply removed the tag because old tags with no evidence of continuing discussion or obvious bias should normally be removed. Paul B ( talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I'm going offline now. Paul B ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, the obligation is yours to bring up a discussion about your desired text addition to Madonna (entertainer), talking about a new boyfriend of Madonna's. See you at Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Binksternet ( talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, strange wording. However, I think it stems from her revealing she was pregnant "unofficially" a few hours before on the red carpet of the ceremony, only to do it properly later. I'd say re-word it, unless the source says that what she did on the red carpet pulled in viewers for the actual ceremony. If not, the editor who put it in is drawing inferences. — Jennie | ☎ 19:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, we don't have the Malaysia trip? I think that's important for someone we keep mentioning getting International Artist awards. I agree with the Hampton's mansion, who cares, but I think the Cuba trip is different. It's quite politicized, not them being rich wackos.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Madonna (entertainer). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. If you cannot adhere to WP:BRD and continue reverting, next time it will be WP:ANI. And you started the tone of calling an user ageist. So either cease that tone else none of use are assuming good faith in this edit. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyoncé Knowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFDA ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
[1] — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter
We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive. The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
|
I wasn't aware the debate was still ongoing until now, so I've included the other Billboard Awards for more balance. Thanks. — Jennie | ☎ 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyoncé Knowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Was Here ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you split the Pepsi endorsement away from Products and endorsements but there is a sentence or two about H&M at the end. Would you consider re-naming the content or moving the sentence(s)? — Jennie | ☎ 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
1) The fact that an artist releases under a certain label hardly needs to be repeated throughout an article and is clearly discernible from the infobox and a mention in the lead. A music publisher is different to a record label (as I explained to you previously) and the distinction did not need to be randomly made at this point or any where else.
2) I wasn't the editor who added the information about them being a $1 billion dollar couple, I re-phrased and provided the source, and did so before you posted your objection on the talk page today (so I'm hardly ignoring a "discussion" when none existed).
3) Your right; it's not the style of an intro to have references, as long as its cited in the main body - which it isn't (I checked) even briefly.
Please don't take the reversion or further editing of your edits so personally; none of the above is deserved of a "warning" and spouting threats isn't necessary. Thanks. — Jennie | ☎ 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you copy edit The Fog again? I just added more details. Thanks.-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Richards Smit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Wave, Knickerbocker and MFA ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If you mean redundant in terms of the commonplace across Wikipedia, I understand, but it does offer cohesion with other Music BLPs and rankings, here, although there definitely are some, aren't as prolific as Honors and awards. Concerning the "Fifth studio album", biographical sections should always refer to the primary projects or events in that time frame, we know we have very little details on it, but we are assured it's "on its way" quite soon. By then it will take a much more proportionate role in the section (which I know it isn't currently) but other titles referring to say the Super Bowl Half-Time performance, The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour, Pepsi and Epic (projects we know about) are assuredly less relevant and will eventually be changed to album title anyway. (In a nutshell: I understand, and, in part, agree with your concerns, but it's almost delaying the inevitable fact that the fifth studio album is and will be the primary concern of the 2013 section). — Jennie | ☎ 20:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You know that isn't true Aichik, if anything, I was continually supportive of your copyediting of the article and of additions that other editors opposed because they were contentious. However, having experience with GAs and knowing the criteria quite soundly, it really did lay with summary style and related organisation, which was solved quite efficiently. You proposed 3 other criteria as problematic, which were all shown to be fine, and prolonging it to "copy edit" (unless it had spelling/grammar issues) is of no concern to the process. — Jennie | ☎ 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just in case I wasn't clear in the talk page note you reverted, public image constitutes someone's personality, appearance and general reception. Costuming on The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour has a section for the looks and designers she has worked with; including the reception. Thanks. — Jennie | ☎ 21:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A21sauce ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Editor who blocked me didn't follow the 3-revert edit rule
Decline reason:
It isn't necessary to breach 3RR to get blocked for edit warring. Request doesn't address reason for block, so declining as a matter of procedure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
First off, you are not entitled to 3 reverts in 24 hours per WP:EW. Second, do you have a different definition of the number 3? [2], [3], [4], [5]? Toddst1 ( talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please note that whenever you discuss someone's actions on WP:ANI you must notify them. In your report regarding Jennie--x ( talk · contribs) you failed to do so. You obviously ignored the big orange box that popped up when you edited the page. Please be sure to notify anyone in the future you may discuss. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was ABOUT TO. You could clearly see that I was editing my entry before you blocked me.-- Aichik ( talk) 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Beyoncé Knowles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Calm down, dude - you already got blocked once. I know it's annoying when editors like Jennie take ownership of articles but sometimes it's better to take a breather and come back when things have calmed down. Little Professor ( talk) 12:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Don't adopt this tone with me. How can removing sourced material be justified as constructive? Should I assume that according to you, far too many people are inspired by Beyonce and you are just removing the least famous ones just to [trim the] overlong list of singers influenced by her? Jivesh1205 ( Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I toyed with this as well, initially I put in "Superbowl" and then "Mrs. Carter Show World Tour", but then it got removed by other editors. I agree with them now, however, they are significant because that's what's happened so far in 2013, but not so in long-term of her biography, we would end up changing it anyway, so the most prominent project she does in that time scale should take hold (especially because she is first and foremost, a recording artist). — Jennie | ☎ 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Tone down the discussion of other editors' motives. I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but if you let that irritation cause you to lash out and insult other editors again, I'll block you.— Kww( talk) 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw your response on TBrandley's page, so let's make this explicitly clear: your edits constituted a personal attack on Jivesh. It doesn't matter how irritated you were. It doesn't matter how you feel about his motivations. Your comment placed you squarely in the wrong, and, if you repeat a comment like that, you will be blocked until you agree to stop.— Kww( talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Be careful not to edit war( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=540396420&oldid=540395258 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=540391506&oldid=540363856), either.— Kww( talk) 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Good. When huge pop stars like Adele and Rihanna say they're inspired by Beyoncé then it's definitely worth a mention in her bio article. 0z ( talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Aichik, I've made a suggestion here that is aimed towards ending the current impasse. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 ( talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, on the basis that biographies don't refer to it all, biography.com, for example, says how Rowland met Knowles' family following the former's move to Houston, and they became subsequent friends. — Jennie | ☎ 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The article you provided linked to a blog which is not a reliable source, it also provides a minority view point and shouldn't be included. — Jennie | ☎ 23:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
You didn't do much better with your link to the information on Blue Ivy's birth, but I fixed that.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not pushing a point of view: It's mere logic. Asking at Help desk, so just be patient. And you're not the best with GAR either.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I scanned the discussion you referenced, and found what seems to be endless bickering. As I said some time ago in reply to User:Bencherlite, I don't want to get involved. I think it would merely degenerate into me arguing pointlessly with fans. The truth is, I have no personal interest in Beyoncé or other pop divas of the moment. My point was that, in the grand scheme of things, these personalities don't merit anywhere near the wordage they get on Wiki. The current Beyoncé article runs to about 7,500 words -- too many! Sca ( talk) 15:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Heavy" is a loaded word, and does not help the neutrality of the GA. The Chicago Manual of Style is helpful for your grammar claim; "articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title.""articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title." — Jennie | ☎ 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I already showed you in my edits. The evidence that you took to be "original research" and now the fact that she had the opportunity to close the book but didn't with her doc.-- Aichik ( talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? ( talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've no idea whether the editors are close to Quinn or not. As I remember, I said there is no disernable evidence of that. Frankly, it would be astounding if an article on a politician were not often edited by supporters, and sometimes staffers etc. I simply removed the tag because old tags with no evidence of continuing discussion or obvious bias should normally be removed. Paul B ( talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
p.s. I'm going offline now. Paul B ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, the obligation is yours to bring up a discussion about your desired text addition to Madonna (entertainer), talking about a new boyfriend of Madonna's. See you at Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Binksternet ( talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, strange wording. However, I think it stems from her revealing she was pregnant "unofficially" a few hours before on the red carpet of the ceremony, only to do it properly later. I'd say re-word it, unless the source says that what she did on the red carpet pulled in viewers for the actual ceremony. If not, the editor who put it in is drawing inferences. — Jennie | ☎ 19:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, we don't have the Malaysia trip? I think that's important for someone we keep mentioning getting International Artist awards. I agree with the Hampton's mansion, who cares, but I think the Cuba trip is different. It's quite politicized, not them being rich wackos.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Madonna (entertainer). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. If you cannot adhere to WP:BRD and continue reverting, next time it will be WP:ANI. And you started the tone of calling an user ageist. So either cease that tone else none of use are assuming good faith in this edit. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyoncé Knowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFDA ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
[1] — Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter
We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive. The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the
May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by
EdwardsBot (
talk) 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
|
I wasn't aware the debate was still ongoing until now, so I've included the other Billboard Awards for more balance. Thanks. — Jennie | ☎ 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyoncé Knowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Was Here ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you split the Pepsi endorsement away from Products and endorsements but there is a sentence or two about H&M at the end. Would you consider re-naming the content or moving the sentence(s)? — Jennie | ☎ 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure.-- Aichik ( talk) 20:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
1) The fact that an artist releases under a certain label hardly needs to be repeated throughout an article and is clearly discernible from the infobox and a mention in the lead. A music publisher is different to a record label (as I explained to you previously) and the distinction did not need to be randomly made at this point or any where else.
2) I wasn't the editor who added the information about them being a $1 billion dollar couple, I re-phrased and provided the source, and did so before you posted your objection on the talk page today (so I'm hardly ignoring a "discussion" when none existed).
3) Your right; it's not the style of an intro to have references, as long as its cited in the main body - which it isn't (I checked) even briefly.
Please don't take the reversion or further editing of your edits so personally; none of the above is deserved of a "warning" and spouting threats isn't necessary. Thanks. — Jennie | ☎ 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can you copy edit The Fog again? I just added more details. Thanks.-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Richards Smit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Wave, Knickerbocker and MFA ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
If you mean redundant in terms of the commonplace across Wikipedia, I understand, but it does offer cohesion with other Music BLPs and rankings, here, although there definitely are some, aren't as prolific as Honors and awards. Concerning the "Fifth studio album", biographical sections should always refer to the primary projects or events in that time frame, we know we have very little details on it, but we are assured it's "on its way" quite soon. By then it will take a much more proportionate role in the section (which I know it isn't currently) but other titles referring to say the Super Bowl Half-Time performance, The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour, Pepsi and Epic (projects we know about) are assuredly less relevant and will eventually be changed to album title anyway. (In a nutshell: I understand, and, in part, agree with your concerns, but it's almost delaying the inevitable fact that the fifth studio album is and will be the primary concern of the 2013 section). — Jennie | ☎ 20:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You know that isn't true Aichik, if anything, I was continually supportive of your copyediting of the article and of additions that other editors opposed because they were contentious. However, having experience with GAs and knowing the criteria quite soundly, it really did lay with summary style and related organisation, which was solved quite efficiently. You proposed 3 other criteria as problematic, which were all shown to be fine, and prolonging it to "copy edit" (unless it had spelling/grammar issues) is of no concern to the process. — Jennie | ☎ 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Just in case I wasn't clear in the talk page note you reverted, public image constitutes someone's personality, appearance and general reception. Costuming on The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour has a section for the looks and designers she has worked with; including the reception. Thanks. — Jennie | ☎ 21:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
A21sauce ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Editor who blocked me didn't follow the 3-revert edit rule
Decline reason:
It isn't necessary to breach 3RR to get blocked for edit warring. Request doesn't address reason for block, so declining as a matter of procedure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
First off, you are not entitled to 3 reverts in 24 hours per WP:EW. Second, do you have a different definition of the number 3? [2], [3], [4], [5]? Toddst1 ( talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please note that whenever you discuss someone's actions on WP:ANI you must notify them. In your report regarding Jennie--x ( talk · contribs) you failed to do so. You obviously ignored the big orange box that popped up when you edited the page. Please be sure to notify anyone in the future you may discuss. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was ABOUT TO. You could clearly see that I was editing my entry before you blocked me.-- Aichik ( talk) 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Beyoncé Knowles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Calm down, dude - you already got blocked once. I know it's annoying when editors like Jennie take ownership of articles but sometimes it's better to take a breather and come back when things have calmed down. Little Professor ( talk) 12:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |