User talk:AshMusique
January 2019
[edit]
Hello. Apologies for not elaborating on my removal of your edit. Your source is correct, however lead ins are there to state the occupation(s) of said person (in this case, Chris Brown), and therefore the lead is NOT designated for legal histories or personal issues. There is most likely a section in the article for that. If we edited Chris Brown's page like that, then questions would arise as to why other artists' (who have been convicted of felonies) pages do not have the same lead in. It could come across as biased. AshMusique (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]
|
)
=)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Just wanted to give you this since your edits are very constructive and informative. You have also helped me get better at editing which I appreciate a lot. You're doing an amazing job! DariuZzandor 20:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC) |
- DariuZzandor, thank you so much. :) This means a lot! Glad I am able to help, although I'm still learning myself. You are doing an excellent job, too. Keep it up! AshMusique (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hey AshMusique, Thank you for your contributions. Been following your work. Was hoping to get some assistance with my page. Thank you TwoTiime (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Death of George Floyd
[edit]
On 28 May 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Death of George Floyd, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — RealFakeKimT 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thank you for feeding us!
[edit]
|
not least by adding the death of George Floyd documentation |
DYK for Gooba
[edit]
On 6 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gooba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American rapper 6ix9ine requested permission from a judge to record the music video for "Gooba" while under house arrest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gooba. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gooba), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank youuuuuu
[edit]Thank you soooooo much for editing Jaden Smith's page , it really needed the fixing Mafufu (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, AshMusique
Thank you for creating Something Special (song).
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|North8000}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Redirecting articles that sockpuppets made
[edit]While you're well within your rights to do this, you will notice admins who routinely redirect articles created by socks per WP:EVADE skip over articles that have subsequently been expanded and altered by other editors. Unfortunately, there have been plenty of articles created by socks before they were banned on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean we go back and redirect those articles if they've been expanded and added onto by others, because by so doing you're also undoing other innocent editors' work. You've redirected something like five clearly notable articles, and even routinely tagged the images I uploaded for being orphaned. Unless the sock is the only editor to have edited an article, it's best to be judicious about the others that have been unknowingly expanded by other editors and leave them be. Undoing block evasion does not mean we should be undoing others' work as well. Ss112 22:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:BRD, your redirect of Late at Night (Roddy Ricch song) was reverted, so please start a discussion on the article talk page or nominate the article for deletion with the reasoning that because a sockpuppet created it, it should be entirely expunged. As I stated in my summary just now, reverting a sockpuppet's edits, citing WP:EVADE or not, is not a justification to edit war or repeatedly revert to a redirect. The article has already been altered and expanded by other editors, primarily myself, beyond just the sockpuppet's edits. If you cannot accept that, follow BRD or go to AfD. It's quite simple. In future, when something like this happens, respond on your talk page and not through a revert summary. Thank you. Ss112 18:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- And also, your point that if we don't redirect an article a sockpuppet might think their edits are welcome—no, they won't think so, because their accounts are already blocked. We tell sockpuppets their edits are not welcome not by meticulously reverting or rolling back everything they've ever done—which sometimes cannot be done, at least not easily or not in a worthwhile manner—but by blocking them. Which has already been done. A sockpuppeteer is not going to go through and check which articles they worked on or which edits are still live and think "Wow, they must really like me and want me here" and disregard that they can no longer make such edits. Ss112 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ss112, thank you for the message. However, I'm sorry to say, you are wrong. Firstly, regarding this edit summary, I was not engaging in an edit war, as you stated. I redirected the article once after you restored it, I was not going in a back and forth with you, and I also didn't and still do not feel it was necessary to have started a discussion on the article talk page or whichever avenue. With that said, WP:EVADE is pretty explicit in what it states, and I was well within my rights to redirect the article, even after you restored it - I don't need to start a discussion or go back and forth for something which a guideline is clear about. You citing BRD is not relevant here. Secondly, you stated in this edit summary that "the article can be altered and changed by other editors now", yet none of the content was altered or changed, except for categories and chart peaks that were added, and also apart from a slight rewording in the music video section. Nothing significantly different. See the sock's version of the article
- And also, your point that if we don't redirect an article a sockpuppet might think their edits are welcome—no, they won't think so, because their accounts are already blocked. We tell sockpuppets their edits are not welcome not by meticulously reverting or rolling back everything they've ever done—which sometimes cannot be done, at least not easily or not in a worthwhile manner—but by blocking them. Which has already been done. A sockpuppeteer is not going to go through and check which articles they worked on or which edits are still live and think "Wow, they must really like me and want me here" and disregard that they can no longer make such edits. Ss112 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
vs the current revision. I'm sorry, I will not "accept" that the article will stay in place in its current form. You haven't cited any guidelines that prohibits me from redirecting the article, per WP:EVADE, especially, as I mentioned in my most recent edit summary, the sock has been extremely persistent and problematic, returning every week. I've had to report them numerous times. Yes, the article may be beneficial to the project, but not with the aforementioned considered. At this rate, we might as well allow articles created by socks to stay live and in the mainspace. You even said above in your initial message, "Unless the sock is the only editor to have edited an article [...]", and regarding redirecting articles created by socks: "You are well within your rights to do so". And I disagree with you, sockpuppets definitely could get the impression that they can continue with their sockpuppetry if they see that their work stays in place. (This is why they continue to come back, and trust me, this sockpuppeteer does come back and restore some of their redirected/reverted work, hoping for it to stay in place). Yes, I'm sure that happens often, as it is perhaps overlooked or not noticed, but in a case like this where we know it's the work of a sock, it shouldn't be tolerated and the encouragement shouldn't be given. I redirected the article after their succession of edits, no other editor had edited it prior to my first redirect. We undo sockpuppets' edits where possible, because they are not welcome, and block them. Again, I'm sorry to say this, but you're making this an unnecessary and avoidable incident. AshMusique (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ash, I know you disagree, hence why you have now redirected the article twice. However, you cannot keep redirecting an article hoping for it to stay in place when someone disagrees with you. WP:EVADE is not a justification to repeatedly redirect entire articles others have contributed to, whether you disagree about the extent of their work or not. If you don't want an article to stay, nominate it for deletion. This is the next normal course of action for editors who redirect articles because they feel they fail notability, so it should be yours as well. I entirely disagree about sockpuppeteers; they come back because they want to edit or they can't stop editing. They don't come back because they think their work is "encouraged". The fact that you even pointed out (socks of) this Rishabisajakepauler editor restores their work tells us they know their edits are not encouraged because they're not still live. You are focusing on expunging this one article and I'm sure there's more constructive uses of your time than thinking if this article stays that it is somehow expediting Rishabisajakepauler's return to the encyclopedia on a new account or IP. From the sounds of it, the dude would return regardless of any one article staying. I have altered the article—adding a whole chart section is altering it by expanding it. I'm not going to continue to argue with you. Nominate the article for deletion if you don't want it to stay, because continuing to do so at this point would be an edit war. Thanks for your reply. Ss112 00:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not merely about me disagreeing, it's the fact that I'm right in redirecting the article. Your disagreement holds no bounds in this case. Again, as I stated before, neither you or any other editors edited the article before I redirected it the first time. If anyone should have started a discussion about it, it should've been you, the user that restored it, or if you feel so strongly about keeping the article, then I suggest you recreate it and compose it yourself. You shouldn't have restored the article with the sock's content in the first place, with your knowledge of the guidelines at WP:EVADE. And again, I don't have to nominate it for deletion when WP:EVADE, an actual guideline, is explicit. The "normal cause" is to redirect it per WP:EVADE, not start a discussion or nominate it at AfD. I'm not sure if you simply mentioned notability as an example or not, but notability is not the problem here - the song is obviously notable, but it's not helpful to the project if it was created by a particularly problematic sock. Regarding socks returning, I didn't mean their work is encouraged, I meant the fact that an article this sock created is still live, is definitely an encouragement for them, specifically this sock, to return to creating articles, because as is the case here, their work stays in place, and that can happen again, because they will see it, and users like you allow for it to happen. They restore their content if it gets deleted/reverted, but this is not the case here. You're interpreting me wrong if you think I meant this will cease "Rishabisajakepauler's return to the encyclopedia on a new account or IP", not with their track record anyway. That's not the entire point, it's that their work should not be allowed to stay in place. You're right that my time could be spent more constructively, but I'm not leaving it at this because it creates the precedent for this to be considered acceptable. You didn't alter the article's existing content, nothing was changed per se, definitely not significanty; the sock's content, everything from their wording to their references are still in place. Your additions did not alter anything that wasn't already there. Just because an uncountable amount of work by socks stays in place doesn't mean it should be okay for it to happen, most certainly not when it's known a sock created whichever work. I say this with all due respect and mean no disrespect, but it feels to me that you are just looking for excuses to keep the article live, perhaps because you were the first to edit/restore it with chart peaks? I repeat, you still have not cited any guidelines that stands against what I, and WP:EVADE state. I have not redirected the article back because I do not wish to engage in an edit war, and instead was hoping to get through to you. I respect you very much for the hardworking editor you are, and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say the following, because it may come across that way, and perhaps you don't see it as such, but it's okay to be wrong. I've had to accept that many times on here. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, as you dealt with this sockpuppeteer, most recently.
I'm sorry to involve you in this, but as an admin, and the one who blocked this specific sock, I'm hoping you could she'd some light, please. I feel as though Ss112 is purposefully ignoring the point I'm making, and I'm having to repeat myself. They have contradicted themselves from what they stated in their initial message at the top of this section and I just don't follow their reasoning. AshMusique (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)- WP:PROXYING disallows making edits on behalf of a banned or blocked editor. However, editors are allowed to restore edits made by a sock puppet if they take responsibility for those edits. So, if someone restores vandalism or a BLP violation, they can be blocked for that. As a CheckUser for four years, my advice is to not get too worked up over this stuff, or you'll get burnt out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- NinjaRobotPirate, thank you for responding. I am aware of the guidelines surrounding proxying. What about all the points I made, and about what WP:EVADE states? It feels as though we are just to ignore policy here. I'm sorry, but I'm not satisfied with your answer, as it doesn't address what the right route here is. I'm not saying that you have to sway a certain way. AshMusique (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Policy states that if someone wants to restore sock puppet edits, they can. That's why I said not to get too worked up over this stuff. It doesn't matter what some policy says about how you can revert the edits. Of course you can. Someone else can also revert you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC
- NinjaRobotPirate, thank you for responding. I am aware of the guidelines surrounding proxying. What about all the points I made, and about what WP:EVADE states? It feels as though we are just to ignore policy here. I'm sorry, but I'm not satisfied with your answer, as it doesn't address what the right route here is. I'm not saying that you have to sway a certain way. AshMusique (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP:PROXYING disallows making edits on behalf of a banned or blocked editor. However, editors are allowed to restore edits made by a sock puppet if they take responsibility for those edits. So, if someone restores vandalism or a BLP violation, they can be blocked for that. As a CheckUser for four years, my advice is to not get too worked up over this stuff, or you'll get burnt out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not merely about me disagreeing, it's the fact that I'm right in redirecting the article. Your disagreement holds no bounds in this case. Again, as I stated before, neither you or any other editors edited the article before I redirected it the first time. If anyone should have started a discussion about it, it should've been you, the user that restored it, or if you feel so strongly about keeping the article, then I suggest you recreate it and compose it yourself. You shouldn't have restored the article with the sock's content in the first place, with your knowledge of the guidelines at WP:EVADE. And again, I don't have to nominate it for deletion when WP:EVADE, an actual guideline, is explicit. The "normal cause" is to redirect it per WP:EVADE, not start a discussion or nominate it at AfD. I'm not sure if you simply mentioned notability as an example or not, but notability is not the problem here - the song is obviously notable, but it's not helpful to the project if it was created by a particularly problematic sock. Regarding socks returning, I didn't mean their work is encouraged, I meant the fact that an article this sock created is still live, is definitely an encouragement for them, specifically this sock, to return to creating articles, because as is the case here, their work stays in place, and that can happen again, because they will see it, and users like you allow for it to happen. They restore their content if it gets deleted/reverted, but this is not the case here. You're interpreting me wrong if you think I meant this will cease "Rishabisajakepauler's return to the encyclopedia on a new account or IP", not with their track record anyway. That's not the entire point, it's that their work should not be allowed to stay in place. You're right that my time could be spent more constructively, but I'm not leaving it at this because it creates the precedent for this to be considered acceptable. You didn't alter the article's existing content, nothing was changed per se, definitely not significanty; the sock's content, everything from their wording to their references are still in place. Your additions did not alter anything that wasn't already there. Just because an uncountable amount of work by socks stays in place doesn't mean it should be okay for it to happen, most certainly not when it's known a sock created whichever work. I say this with all due respect and mean no disrespect, but it feels to me that you are just looking for excuses to keep the article live, perhaps because you were the first to edit/restore it with chart peaks? I repeat, you still have not cited any guidelines that stands against what I, and WP:EVADE state. I have not redirected the article back because I do not wish to engage in an edit war, and instead was hoping to get through to you. I respect you very much for the hardworking editor you are, and I'm not trying to be snarky when I say the following, because it may come across that way, and perhaps you don't see it as such, but it's okay to be wrong. I've had to accept that many times on here. Pinging NinjaRobotPirate, as you dealt with this sockpuppeteer, most recently.
"Dawn (The Weeknd album)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
Super Gremlin
[edit]Super Gremlin is not a single
- Hi Trippletripple223, it is a single. It was sent to radio, as is sourced in the article to All Access. It is a generally accepted standard that when a song gets sent to radio, it is then officially a single. Please kindly see WP:SINGLE? for more on this, thank you. AshMusique (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your recent edits to DS4Ever, can you add the reviews from Uproxx, HotNewHipHop, and Stereogum in the article? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:J Cole Lion King on Ice.png
[edit]
A tag has been placed on File:J Cole Lion King on Ice.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.
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. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 05:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:J Cole The Climb Back.png
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:J Cole The Climb Back.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 18:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Jessica Darrow - Surface Pressure.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Jessica Darrow - Surface Pressure.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 03:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
"Pink Friday 2" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
Jessica Darrow AfD
[edit]Since you have previously been involved with the Jessica Darrow article/redirect, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Darrow. Aerin17 (t • c) 06:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Mulatto - Queen of da Souf.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Mulatto - Queen of da Souf.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 17:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Rishab sock?
[edit]You know more about Rishabisajakepauler socks than me. Is 69.105.147.225 them? I've reverted some of their edits but you might want to revert most/if not all if they are. @Binksternet: in case you know anything about Rishab. Ss112 05:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is definitely them, 'cause they're always editing hip hop articles and Bieber-related articles, like Let It Go (DJ Khaled song) and Lonely Christmas (Bryson Tiller song), which they edited on this IP and have previously edited under other IPs. Thanks for the heads-up. AshMusique (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Can't Leave Without It
[edit]Hello AshMusique, I noticed you recently reverted my creation of the article "Can't Leave Without It". You cited that it fails WP:NSONG. While I didn't cite too many sources for information regarding the song's composition and reception, I believe I should note that the song had a place on several charts, was certified Platinum, and has much more views on YouTube and Genius compared to 21 Savage's other song from I Am > I Was, "Monster", which is all right to have article of its own. I'd like to request you to reconsider it and would really appreciate it. Thank you. MC-123 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @MC-123:, thanks for the message. I redirected it because I felt the content of the article could have been inserted at the album article. But thank you for explaining, I understand and I've restored the article. AshMusique (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. I appreciate that. MC-123 (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, AshMusique
Thank you for creating The Last Slimeto.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, AshMusique
Thank you for creating We Go Up (Nicki Minaj song).
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good start
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Un Verano sin Ti
[edit]Hello, "sin" is a preposition in Spanish, so it should be in lowercase. 7szz (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Milly Rock
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Milly Rock requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article does not exist or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, AshMusique
Thank you for creating Hold That Heat.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Good start. I marked it as reviewed. Happy editing.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ash. I just reverted your redirection of the new stub I created (linked in the section title). I think you're selling Wikipedia short by redirecting stubs less than a day after they're created, especially on obviously notable topics. Allow a day or two and the article will have plenty of content. Thank you --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
"Nio García" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Megan Thee Stallion discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypebeast.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19
[edit]An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Super Freaky Girl, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Playtime Is Over and Hypebeast.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| You seem to be single-handedly running the whole popular music side of Wikipedia articles. Good work! Castlepalace 19:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC) |
August 2022
[edit]
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| The article for Super Freaky Girl looks freaking amazing! GA-level quality if you ask me. And to think it was for a song that was only released three or so weeks ago? Freaking amazing. Great job AshMusique! PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC) |
- Hey PHShanghai, thank you so much, this means a lot. I haven't been on Wiki much for the last year, so apologies for only responding now. AshMusique (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it, I actually am defacto retired from editing because honestly the structure of Wikipedia is kinda broken, and biased editors make it their day time job to edit war over irrelevant pages. See the style of editing used by a contributor on Taylor Swift vs Ariana Grande. The talk pages for those two articles are a mess PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Belated RfD notice
[edit]Donald Trump Twitter, which you created, is at RfD; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Donald Trump and Twitter. Your contribution is welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Pasadena (Tinashe song)
[edit]
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions
Domm37 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Would
[edit]It was many months ago, but I've just seen this edit. It is so refreshing to find I'm not the only one who finds the use of "would do" to mean "did" silly. JBW (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I’ve reverted your reverts to Paris to Tokyo and Up All Night (Khalid song), since I feel like they were perfectly fine articles, and WP:EVADE does not require removing material. If they weren’t perfectly fine (fabricated samples to give an extreme example), feel free to rollback my edits and note the articles’ problems in the summary MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Pasadena (Tinashe song)
[edit]Hello, AshMusique. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pasadena".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
File:Nicki Minaj - Super Freaky Girl (Roman Remix).png listed for discussion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nicki Minaj - Super Freaky Girl (Roman Remix).png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, AshMusique. Thank you for your work on Prada (song). User:Losipov, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
I think more sources would be helpful, but right now it looks fine. Good work on this
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Losipov}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Losipov (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:J Cole The Climb Back.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:J Cole The Climb Back.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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) 17:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
"Cock Destroyers" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
"Culture Jam (mixtape)" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
Orphaned non-free image File:PartyNextDoor - Colours (2021 cover).png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:PartyNextDoor - Colours (2021 cover).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]