User talk:Gagaluv1

Thanks for adding the EP details. I wonder if you might be able to add chart positions to the EP articles as well? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:HadestownPlaybillJune.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only awards that belong in the infoboxes of theatre articles are Tonys and Oliviers, unless there is a special case, like a Pulitzer. If the show never went to Broadway or the West End, then we *can* mention the highest award given in the industry for the market where it played, like an Obie, but this is not essential. Please remove all the Drama Desk awards and other lesser awards. If people start adding lesser awards, the infoboxes will become an even more severe space problem at the top of articles; please help to keep non-essential info out of infoboxes. See Article Structure Guidelines at WP:MUSICALS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, thanks! Please let me know if anyone challenges these edits on any of the articles, and I will be happy to review the situation and weigh in. By the way, in my opinion, the "Awards" sections at the bottom of musicals, especially successful musicals with lots of awards, are out of control and violate WP:BALASP. The better quality articles often move the big fat Awards tables to a separate sub-article and leave in the main article a short section with a text summary that gives a brief overview of the most important awards earned by the musical. For example, see how it is handled in Wicked (musical). Alternately, the awards can simply be mentioned in the Productions section or the Critical reception section. In The King and I we did both, mentioning the key awards in the Productions section, together with the description of each production, and then giving the cross-reference to the sub-article in the Critical reception section near the bottom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give 90 Days (Pink song (featuring Wrabel)) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 90 Days (song). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see it now! Thank you for the information!Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A change as significant as moving promotional singles released while a contestant—in this case, Martinez—was on The Voice should be discussed. If you look around, you will find that basically no articles put these sorts of singles in the main singles table of an artist. Do not edit war; get consensus on the article talk page. Thank you. Ss112 17:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thank you for the information. I don't follow any Voice alumni outside of Martinez so I wasn't accustomed to how to handle those releases. I'll be sure to take that into account from now on.Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have added refnames to references in your edits before, as I have seen them. So please make use of them. You added unnecessary duplicates of references when you expanded Trixie Mattel discography when you could have just added a refname. Ss112 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have never used them before because I wasn't sure how they worked. Thanks to your comment I have looked into it and will implement into my edits going forward. Thank you.Gagaluv1 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in an edit summary you said I was edit warring and threatened to bring in an admin. But you realize that you are also edit warring so that doesn't make sense? Also the song is not body positive, it shames skinny people. Body positive would support people of all shapes. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on whether to split Template:Ariana Grande into Template:Ariana Grande songs. Fan4Life (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Billiekhalidfan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Good as Hell have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted an edit you made that I felt was factually incorrect. That's not "experimenting."Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was certainly vandalism because you ignored the hidden note. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not every edit that disagrees with your opinion is vandalism.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited! If you wanna come play with us... Wikipedia:WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. Either way, happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Robyn (album). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This is not the first time someone notices you adding unverified material, or you reverting someone without a proper explanation. Adding unsourced information is disruptive; not explaining your edits is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what edits on that article you are referring to. If you want to bring attention to my edits that you have a problem with that's fine. But don't just pick a random article I edited and claim I added unsourced content and then threaten to block me.Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This helpful edit included many errors in the sources, such as mistaken names, malformed dates, inaccuracies, and the placement in the running text instead of the {{reflist}} template. Please take a second look in the future. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you again place references in the incorrect place and insert inaccurate data? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to, the information was correct and inline references are perfectly acceptable. The chart I made was directly based off of the one on Thank U, Next so I'm not sure what the problem is.Gagaluv1 (talk) 04:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, When was this published? When did you say that it was published? Is there anyone on Earth named "UPROXX MusicTwitter" or "Jonathan Bernstein,Jon Blistein,Jon Dolan,Patrick Doyle,Brenna Ehrlich,Suzy Exposito,Jon Freeman,David Fricke,Kory Grow,Will Hermes,Christian Hoard,Charles Holmes,Joseph Hudak,Brendan Klinkenberg,Elias Leight,Angie Martoccio,Claire Shaffer,Rob Sheffield,Hank Shteamer,Brittany Spanos,Simon Vozick-Levinson"? Does this article use ISO dates or mdy dates? Should articles change citation style mid-article or remain consistent? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:DASH re: using hyphens in place of em dashes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man. You are clearly using some bot or script to insert things like "Jem Aswad,Andrew Barker,Chris". Are you even looking at what you're writing? Please tell me that you are going to audit your work now... How did you do this? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was mostly cutting and changing the sources from the Ariana Grande article and used that as a basis for the others. Past experiences have taught me not to go by my own decisions and base my formatting on the work of others. I assumed that since it was acceptable in that very big article there wouldn't be an issue. Gagaluv1 (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, Are you going to check your edits to confirm that they are accurate? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in the future I will do a better job of vetting my edits and not just copy/pasting.Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gagaluv1, figured it would be easiest to talk to you here about the edits we have been disagreeing on. While (as per your edit summary) sources talk about the two male main characters' relationship and marriage and there are LGBTQ+ characters in the show, none of this is mentioned (and then referenced) in the article. This is why as per WP:CATV I removed the category. The only mention of any LGBTQ+ atm appears to be a very brief mention of a character in a fictional podcast inside the podcast. Greyjoy ^talk 07:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in relation to your recent edit on the Kate Bush discography page, "Wuthering Heights" apparently did peak at #8 on the Bubbling Under chart (though, technically, this is not the same as being #108 as was listed on the discography). It does not currently appear on the Billboard site (which, unfortunately, seems to have an incomplete record) here https://www.billboard.com/music/kate-bush under Bubbling Under, though. Someone (who is now deceased) posted her UK & US chart history, along with that of many other artists, here - https://www.ukmix.org/showthread.php?12425&p=483578#post483578 , where "Wuthering Heights" can be seen charting at #108. However, wikipedia does not allow UK Mix to be cited directly (I assume due to it being abused in the past for citing claimed worldwide sales for artists - for which it would not be a reliable source).Nqr9 (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Left at London, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Also, you have repeatedly removed sourced content from the article. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing. Multiple users have already told you to stop adding unsourced content (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). 114.158.42.129 (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Left at London, you may be blocked from editing. For the discography of an underground musician like Left at London, whose recordings don't have any chart positions or sales certifications, I don't think it's a good idea to use a table. In addition, your edits like this one are not supported by the sources cited in the article. 180.34.5.180 (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Okay. So why didn't you just say that? You have not offered any reason for undoing my edits, you've just kept removing my tables by just claiming its "unsourced" (which it is not). Also going through past versions of my talk page just to dredge up other bad faith attacks against me is just bizzare.Gagaluv1 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Left at London. You haven't provided any good reason to use a table to this article. Furthermore, most of your edits like this one and this one are not supported by the sources cited in the article. For example, does the source state that You Are Not Alone Enough will be released in 2020? No. Do the sources state that Youth Group Computer, 2 Rowdy 4 Dennys / Give Peace a Break, and Will Write Songs 4 Money are demo albums? No. Do the sources state that these recordings were released on vinyl and/or CD? No. Please stop adding unsourced content. 180.34.5.180 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you win. I don't have the time to argue with an IP, and besides I know this isn't going to go anywhere.Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Left at London. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 123.225.131.115 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so obsessed with this? The content is factual and sourced and reverting it is just disruptive and you would be blocked by now if you were a real account. You don’t get to gatekeep how articles are presented based on personal preference. And stop hiding behind various ips. It’s cowardly.Gagaluv1 (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Left at London. Again, for the discography of an underground musician like Left at London, whose recordings don't have any chart positions or sales certifications, I don't think it's a good idea to use a table. You haven't provided any good reason to use a table to this article. 123.225.131.115 (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally an actual discussion instead of empty threats! I think a table is a more succint representation of the information, as such tables are standard across the entire website. Additionally lists can’t give you information like release dates, formats, and record labels without getting overly crowded.Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using a table to the discography is not mandatory in Wikipedia. Release date, record label, and format can be added to the article like this way:

• "6 Feet" (4 December 2019, Left at London Is Gay, digital download)

Again, most of your edits are not supported by the sources cited in the article. For example, does the source state that You Are Not Alone Enough will be released in 2020? No. Do the sources state that Youth Group Computer, 2 Rowdy 4 Dennys / Give Peace a Break, and Will Write Songs 4 Money are demo albums? No. Do the sources state that these recordings were released on vinyl and/or CD? No. Please stop adding unsourced content. 123.225.131.115 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of this can be easily verified and I have never seen an article individually source every single format. I believe that putting it in a table makes it easier to read. This really doesn’t have anything more to it than personal preference.Gagaluv1 (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, underground musicians' recordings are not easily verified. Hence the discography for these artists need sourcing. If Left at London's recording appears on any notable chart (Billboard, Official Charts Company, etc.), I won't object to using a table in this article.

With this edit, "Blacknwhite" has been already restored with a source. I have no idea why you keep removing the source. 123.225.131.115 (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's not edit. Bring your concerns to the talk page if you believe "Porsche" was sold as a promotional single. I doubt it since it'd be two years after the song came out... However, let's try to reach a consensus. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 19:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see that you are editing the Peppermint article. I'm sending you a message here because there there is a request for comment currently ongoing on her talk page precisely about the inclusion of other names, and I think the discussion would be enriched with your input. cave (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, “she has spoken about how awful she feels when her birth name is published.” Do you have a link? Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you undo my edit when i put the persons name? What dertermines who gets privacy on wikipedia. I dont see any source saying she does — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntManSC (talk • contribs) 19:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about that source even says it’s her, it’s just a photo of a high school student in a local newspaper that looks like her. It likely is her but we don’t know for sure.Gagaluv1 (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also disagree with simply piping it as BLOODMONEY and omitting the confusing and contradictory note? Because that still makes the most sense to me. Alternatively, would you agree the article should not exist in the first place, like every other song on the album doesn't? It seems complicated just for the sake of complication. Not blaming you, of course. Just the situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standard policy is just listing the song as "Bloodmoney" with a note. That's how it's always done. For recent examples see Norman Fucking Rockwell! or Thank U, Next.

Nothing is always done on Wikipedia. It's a work in progress. For consistency, I've corrected those, too. Do you know any more? It's not much to get used to, one clarifying word. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is pedantic and unnecessary. This is common practice in thousands of articles, if you try to make this a personal crusade you will be editing for days.Gagaluv1 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had personal crusades here that took years. Not sure why you find literal truth worth fighting to hide. We'll meet again, I'm sure, figure it out eventually. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC

I've nominated How I'm Feeling Now for the DYK project. The nomination can be viewed here. I've listed you as a co-creator because of your work done on the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gagaluv1. Do you have some time to discuss the recent changes to this list? I believe we should have a secondary source calling these EPs? Buzzfeed referred to The Love Train as her second EP, and so did the Press of Atlantic City and Us Weekly. Billboard didn't refer to her live releases as EPs either. I do not believe it is appropriate for us to do so when there are no sources for it.--NØ 16:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify Sessions and Singles are considered EPs per many other artist discographies: (Dua Lipa, Carly Rae Jepsen, Harry Styles, etc.). It doesn't make sense to separate these two lists as they are both extended plays.Gagaluv1 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the application of this should be uniform, that is WP:OSE. The Billboard link above states: The two singles bring fans a more relaxed version of "Let You Be Right" and a tender take on Sloan's lonely party anthem, so they clearly do not consider Spotify Singles an EP. The version of the Swift discography article that passed an FLC listed live albums separately [1], same case with Trainor. So if anything, these should be used as examples to change the Carly, Harry and Dua lists. Regards, NØ 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I've actually been wanting to create this article for a while, but I'm really glad you did :) Can I take it to DYK? heyitsben!! ^talk 17:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's so nice of you to say! And if you think that it merits DYK consideration, I say go for it!Gagaluv1 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've pretty much done as much as I can with the article for now. You are more than welcome to read through and do any corrections. I'm kinda overwhelmed with the amount of options for DYK hooks so I was wondering if you had any suggestions? heyitsben!! ^talk 18:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add/modify/remove hooks at Template:Did you know nominations/Mooo! :) heyitsben!! ^talk 19:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gagaluv1, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username North8000, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Trixie and Katya Save the World, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trixie and Katya Save the World.

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your request at WP:RFPP but I haven't closed it, I will leave it for a second opinion. The edit protected requests were denied for two reasons: 1, they didn't provide a specific set of edits required ie change "this line X" to "this line Y." I made one change after a specific request on the talk page. The second reason is because the changes do not have a consensus and are the cause of the edit warring that has caused the page to be temporarily protected in the first place. Instead of the edit protected requests please contribute to the discussion as to how to move all of the articles forward and prevent the edit warring. Woody (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be 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. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic (TALK!) 17:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is there a reason why we need to add the Antonyo award nominations to articles? Per WP:MT/AS#Response, awards sections should focus on major awards. Considering the Antonyos have been around for one season, are not created by an established nominating body, and are voted on by users (which we are supposed to be avoiding anyways per WP:UGC), I don't think they qualify. BOVINEBOY2008 17:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this award is against consensus, by the language explained in the project guideline, so I'm going to remove the award. BOVINEBOY2008 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, per WP:RSMUSIC, AllMusic isn't considered a reliable source when citing genres in the infobox, unless in the AllMusic review itself, definitely not the sidebar. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seconding that: Stop referencing the AllMusic sidebar as stated above, hence my reverting your edits. Robvanvee 11:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I’m sorry I will stop doing it in the future. However I did not like how on Haus Party, Pt. 2 you reverted other helpful edits of mine that had nothing to do with genres.Gagaluv1 (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced genres to Wikipedia, as you did at Scenery (Emily King album). This will be your final warning before we go to WP:ANI Robvanvee 07:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those genres are sourced within the body of the article. How about you actually look at the edits you revert.Gagaluv1 (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your track record, how about you add a footnote to your edits, start abiding by policy and there won't be any problems. Robvanvee 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems Gaga was editing in good faith. Gaga, if the item is sourced solidly in the article, maybe just add to your edit summary “sourced in article already” or similar to preemptively address that concern.

I know that genres are routinely changed so I understand where someone might challenge the edit. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Live at Emo's is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live at Emo's until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently some users are trying to include edits in regards to Arca's gender identity with the apparent intent to highlight the perceived masculine side of her identity. I see you're involved in the article so I'd appreciate your help with any gender-related disruptive edits. cave (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She produced many albums and came to prominence with her old name/gender before, so there's nothing wrong with mentioning it. You've been reverted multiple times and yet refuse discuss on the talk page. You've also violated WP:3RR once. You should move on. nyxærös 09:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have the wrong editor? I have no idea what you’re talking about.Gagaluv1 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you linked Dylan Brady (producer) and then undid it. Is it not him? -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit to Axiom's End. For a YouTube video, you can use {{cite AV media}} (Template:Cite AV media) which allows a time parameter so you can include the timestamp for the location in the video that supports the content. That way readers (and other editors) don't have to listen/watch the whole thing to verify information. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for the information! I'll be sure to implement that into my future editing!Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is tagged with {{in use}}, why would you edit it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new topic and I'm adding necessary information that was left out. Don't create a page that's barely started.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, I'm in the middle of editing it. Why would you change the citation style, too? And rewrite the copy entirely? You also added unsourced information. What are you doing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a citation style that is more standard and easy to use. Again, don't just create an article with barely any information and just expect people to leave it be.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, See WP:CITEVAR: don't change things just because you don't like them, don't add unsourced information (WP:V), don't edit articles that are in use. You can wait 45 minutes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:37, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't change things just because you don't like them and then introduce a bunch of errors. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if what I did upset you, but I don't see why it's a bad thing to edit articles that have been created already. Also, why did you create Category:Orville Peck EPs? It's a useless category since there's only one in it, and EPs are completely allowed to be in artist album category.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it had {{in use}} on it, you introduced several errors, you broke rules like WP:CITEVAR, and you aren't listening. That's why. I created the category to diffuse subcategories of Category:Pop EPs and Category:Country music EPs. "EPs are completely allowed to be in artist album category": ??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all "Category:*artist name* albums" articles include EPs as well, it's an unnecessary distinction. Besides categories shouldn't exist if there's only one page in them.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, What is your problem? You cannot keep doing this: you are introducing source and formatting errors. This article uses list-defined sources and does not use {{Track listing}}. Stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why doesn't this article use Track listing? Because you said? You don't own this article.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I am in the middle of writing this. If you do this again, I'm taking this to WP:ANI. You have to stop. And yes, it doesn't use the track listing template because I said so: I started the article, so I get to choose the style. Just like the citation style, per WP:CITEVAR. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Track_listing. You obviously don't know what you're doing and aren't previewing your edits because you keep on removing the artwork and introducing errors over and over again. Stop it. Wait until the {{in use}} template is removed and don't change citation styles or the track listing style. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, YOU DON'T OWN THIS ARTICLE, and I expanded the tracklisting cuz it allows for more information. And yes I know what I've been doing, I've been editing for six years. You're just being a control freak about this article when wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative spaceGagaluv1 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gagaluv1, It is supposed to be a collaborative space, which is why I expect my colleagues to be respectful and not make arbitrary changes, keep on reverting errors into articles, insert unsourced info, and fight me on long-standing guidelines. How is it I am the control freak when you keep on changing an established style? You don't have any right to do that, so stop. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I came here from the WP:AN discussion so I am aware that things have changed since this discussion started. I just want to say that the next time something like this happens, and particularly if it involves Gagaluv1, please let me know and I will block them if they persist after a warning. Anyone can edit and anyone can be rude and intrusive. The latter get blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explicitly soliciting your feedback to the changes that I just made on Show Pony and I hope that you can refer to my rationale on the talk page for a clear understanding of why I made the changes that I made. If you feel like you have more to add there, I look forward to your contributions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C 16:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 7G (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that some of your edits are being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard, in this thread. Your editing is not the main focus of the thread, and no one has suggested any sanctions against you, but I thought you should be aware of the discussion. (I know you were pinged when it started, but it has moved on a bit since then.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electro.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Sadder badder cooler.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Sadder badder cooler.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liz (musician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mitski lush.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not appropriate to call More Love by Sara Bareilles a soundtrack album because Bareilles’s recordings (other than the theme song) aren’t used in the series. There’s a separate soundtrack album from the Little Voice cast, and even the recording of “Little Voice” on Bareilles’s album is unique to her album and has significant differences from that used as the theme song. I’ll be reverting your edit but wanted to explain in detail why better than I could in an edit summary. I didn’t catch the album listed in its own soundtrack section, or else I’d have removed it. 67.6.100.195 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fergie discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Duchess.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Alma albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when creating navigational box templates such as {{A. G. Cook}}, be sure you add it to all the articles you list in the navbox as well. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But is that applicaple to related articles? I didn't feel like it would be relevant to put the template at the end of those articles.Gagaluv1 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then they shouldn't be included in the navbox. Navboxes are intended to be able to navigate to and from the articles within the navbox. See WP:NAV-WITHIN. Thanks. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Emily king sides.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chromatica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honey Dijon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added this in the article, next time make sure the genres are not sourced in a tacky way, and all that don't need to be in the lead section. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been watching ur qork on Mileys pages. But i see an error on it and i see ur confirmed and know how to edit colums. The track Forguveness and Love was nwver released as a single and the source used is Rate Yout Music qich is a page that an user can catalogue a non ifficial release. Can u remove the song from promotional singles! Thank u a lot.6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMG4323 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

List of Welcome to Night Vale episodes

added a link pointing to Digital download

Mad at Disney

added a link pointing to Digital download

StarKid Productions

added a link pointing to Horror

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angels in America, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages West End and Marianne Elliott.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you reverting obsesibly my edits? --Night Crawling (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put the information. You reverted it multiple times. You are the one constantly reverting not me. These are releases of multiple songs, officially released. They are EPs.Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you are treating me like that we both LGBT pals and this is not fair to be treated like this. I said that 2 track singles are not Eps and even so they were only made available on Spotify. This are not official releases available on any plataform except Spotify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 18:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of our identities have nothing to do with this discussion and I don't know why you'd even think to bring that up. Secondly, Spotify is 100% official. Spotify Singles even have their own wikipedia article and their own curated playlist by Spotify themselves.Gagaluv1 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still I Think you are being insesntive and cruel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Crawling (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are entitled to that opinion but I think you are being childish and oversensitive. It's Wikipedia, restoring sourced information is not a personal attack on you.19:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Gagaluv1 (talk)

Thanks for uploading File:Caroline polachek parachute.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kinky (Kesha song); 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 16:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Let Me Love You Like a Woman.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Miley Cyrus discography 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Left at london dazed.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:100 gecs mtv.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Juno Birch.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where the episode names went? I can’t find the list and it was there before :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99centlips (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are collapsible tables, there should be a “show” button for you to click on the far right side of the table.Gagaluv1 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Miley Cyrus discography 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is from the dispute that's been going on over this article. Night Crawling was warned for this, and it's only fair that you are, too. Please see my user talk page; I'd like to help if I can... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to fat-finger the rollback link and reverted your edits to an article – I immediately self-reverted but wanted to let you know why you (probably) got a notification that your edits had been reverted. Sorry to be so clumsy. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just lowered the protection from full back to semi, since I feel that we've done our best to discuss everything, and because I now have a good idea as to who the "problem child" is in this dispute. Thanks again for participating in the discussion, and I'm sorry you had to get roped into it like that. Just take my advice and what you learned and proceed carefully. Before editing, maybe start a discussion on the article's talk page, state your intentions, and ask for any objections from other users. If Night Crawling responds, let him. If he becomes uncivil or tries other things, just point others to the discussion on my user talk page and advise they read it. If you need my input or advice, let me know. My user talk page is open. I'll keep eyes on the article, but don't hesitate to let me know if things spiral out of control. :-) Keep up the great work, and thanks again for doing your best to collaborate and try and work things out. It's too bad that it didn't happen, but it's not your fault. Cheers! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! Thank you for getting involved, I hope this user will back off from now on, but as you said they do appear to be potentially trolling us, so who knows. Regardless, I'm hoping we can all move forward!Gagaluv1 (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion on the article's talk page and ping Night Crawling. It looks like things are resuming as they did before. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother, what is their deal??Gagaluv1 (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was worth mentioning that the Allstate Man was in the sketch. Uncle Ben is also a well-known character.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Allstate Man was not in the sketch, Dave Chappelle portraying him was. It does not matter if the characters are well known. SNL features impressions of well-known people fictional or not, and it is not normal to list what characters get portrayed in every episode. It's only notable when celebrities outside the host or main cast perform in the episode and who they're playing is merely trivia. The only exceptions I would see are cases like Maya Rudolph as Kamala and Alec Baldwin as Trump, because these are recurring characters.Gagaluv1 (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I've indefinitely blocked Night Crawling as a sock puppet account of OMG4323. I don't think you'll have any more issues with editing that discography page and adding that content. ;-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article to the last revision that you made. If there's anything you previously added that is missing, feel free to add them back. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I had my suspicions that one might’ve been the sock puppet of the other due to the similarities in the writing styles. So sorry you ever got mixed up in this I hope you have a good day!Gagaluv1 (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sawayama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rough Trade.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Albums by drag queens has been nominated for conversion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Chasing rainbows.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Since i was young.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you add chart positions to discographies, please don't just list them with no source, as you did several months ago at Soccer Mommy here. As I'm sure you know, with all material added to Wikipedia, it needs a source per WP:V. Thanks. Ss112 12:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sadder badder cooler.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rina sawayama bad friend.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]