Ascribe4

Unreliable source?

I have not consistently been citing an unreliable website as you claim. I have removed WhoSampled from The Bounce (song) and the others don't include it. If this isn't what you believe I've been citing then what site used by me is unreliable? Kyle Peake (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello, I'm Gaelan. I noticed that you recently removed content from Watch the Throne without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Gaelan 💬✏️ 02:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Amazing (Kanye West song)

The lead isn't too large on that song since it was passed by a GA reviewer in its current state, who certainly has more knowledge than some guy with not even 100 edits. As for the genres, the Composition section clearly looks at why alternative R&B is a genre indirectly so no need to rv it and electropop being listed is just like you adding synthpop since they're both in 808s wiki. Please do not remove this content again as it passed GA status so if you do, I may consider it trolling/edit warring. --Kyle Peake (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Ghost Town and ITAKY

I have reverted your editors from these songs, as using Genius for news on "Ghost Town" is acceptable and Highsnobiety is not listed as unreliable as far as I am aware: if otherwise, please prove so. As for ITAKY, the lead was fine as it is and ALL chart listings if there isn't a huge number should be mentioned! As for the Genius comment about Jay Z, it can be used since it is looking at a possibly not the definitive reference point and I'm not citing Genius Lyrics directly. Edit: I see you removed Highsnobiety because of the Genius mention, but I've addressed that "news" source so won't do so again. Forgot to mention this but u claimed "ITAKY" background section contains OR, but it doesn't if you read the sources so why claim so? Looking further into this, the Wiki you linked to doesn't even mention whether Genius is reliable or not and on the second GA review of "Father Stretch My Hands", the reviewer questioned it and passed Genius for being used as a news source - only remove it if LYRICS!!!! --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

See my talk page as for reasoning to remove the OR tag, if you wish to re-add it then start a discussion on the talk page of "ITAKY" for the tag being added to see if more people oppose or support it.

Edit: I have also edited the lead so not just for the background, but either of this information "ITAKY" that you think is out of place should be discussed on the talk page since BeatlesLedTV has proposed a review for tonight in which the user said that leads should be relatively long, so I believe it is obvious that you don't erase large amounts. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is some better articulating of my thoughts. Stop adding only the US position in the lead, it can just be wrote that the song charted in nine countries. Also don't remove that "Power" and Runaway info unless you can get someone to cosign your claim of "OR" on the talk page. It is possible to ask questions on talk pages to see who opposes or supports your view so do this to NOT edit war. As for lead, the things you have removed do obviously belong. One update is mentioned so the other should be, even if it was only on the clean version. The a cappella voices are a main part of summarizing the song's sound so deserve a mention. West explaining the concept is obviously notable, since the interview received coverage from multiple sources (look it up) and he went into proper detail which is listed only later in the article. It should be mentioned in the lead what critics commented on and if you look through they did comment on the production. How is the listening party not worthy of a mention when it was one of the lead promotions for the album? There, no run-ons here, hope you understand now. Also about the info removal, I am not just saying about the talk page because it's my opinion, I'm saying it because this is how Wiki disputes are supposed to be solved to prevent an edit war so just do that or else it could turn out bad. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Further comments: Stop removing the image of West, it is not out of place at all. Plus you have never once explained why you rv it. The info about conception belongs in marketing since West discussed it in an interview. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead gives more detail than before, kudos. But why is the line about slavery not added when it is an update so is obvy notable? Also, you didn't need to rv the content about "Power" and Swift, though kudos again for placing Runaway first as the source references "ITAKY" and I have placed that info afterwards so it reads better. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Good Morning

I believe your removing and adding of images is fine, just watch out when reverting edits as you accidentally added a ton of repetition that was supposed to removed back to the background section? Kyle Peake (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Good Morning (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Good Morning (Kanye West song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hooks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

R&B

Hi, you had a point about removing the electronic info from the infobox, but R&B can stay as a genre as it is directly sourced in the same way you sourced New Wave. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited I Am a God, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing content

Hello, I would like to state that even though some of your removing of content was justified, other parts were simply you being a reckless user. You removed the sample info on your second edit even though the liner notes referenced state that both songs were sampled and changed that section to Release and promotion again when it shouldn't be as such, since there's enough live performances for such a section and that's one performance that was the debut of the song so it is 100% acceptable as Release and reception. The former is most reckless. Kyle Peake (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mr. Rager, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CP and Note (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing Content

You have been asked by several other editors to stop removing content sourced from YouTube or Genius.com. WP:NOTRSMUSIC is a guide not a definitive list. Just because a source doesn't appear on the good sources list does NOT automatically mean that it is not a reliable source. Genius.com has not been disapproved for credits or lyrics. It often sights sources when posting other interviews. Can you please be more considerate when editing articles. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

RE: RAP GENIUS/Genius.com - there is some evidence that it has licensed lyrics direct from music publishers here. Having said that, I wasn't using it cite lyrics, rather writers and producers which can also be sourced from the iTunes metatags. Either way, I'm not sure how experience you are or not with editing on wikipedia but the premise of linking to a policy/guidance page is to ensure that includes the information you are referring to. There's no use citing WP:NOTRSMUSIC if the website listed isn't included on that page. Linking to the discussion page for a particular source would serve you better when you're trying to cite a discussion or policy decision. Otherwise feel free to continue, and sorry if I came across a bit harsh. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

External links

Sites like Secondhand Songs are not supposed to be used as sources - but, they are allowable as external links. So, please take care not to remove them from lists of external links. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 02:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable source cited multiple times on Operation: Doomsday

Hello. I have seen you doing some major editing work to the article Operation: Doomsday where you have been citing an AllMusic article multiple times as a main source for biographical details. AllMusic is not considered by Wikipedia to be a reliable source for biographical details (see WP:ALLMUSIC). I have already undone these edits three times and do not wish to have to keep fixing the article. If you wish to add text, please make sure that it is:

• 1. In compliance with Wikipedia's plagiarism policy (see WP:PLAGFORM)
• 2. Cited from a reliable source (AllMusic is not considered a reliable source for biographical details)
• 3. Free of personal spelling and grammatical preferences (the names of the articles for DJ Subroc and KMD are free of grammatical marks)

P.S.: No, I am not a sockpuppet account as you suggested I may be, but thank you for your concern.

Hostagecat (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Your recent editing history at Operation: Doomsday 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. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ascribe4 reported by User:Hostagecat (Result: ). Thank you. —Hostagecat (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Operation: Doomsday

• Operation: Doomsday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Ascribe4. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Content is totally outside my realm of knowledge (I'm an old white guy). My only reason for having been in this exchange is suspecting and therefor writing about conflict of interest and undeclared paid. David notMD (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Put down the stick. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. There are more than six million articles in English Wikipedia. Try to find satisfaction editing elsewhere. David notMD (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Ascribe4. If you want to make more contributions to Operation: Doomsday, I suggest you add a response to the existing thread at Talk:Operation: Doomsday#Issues with current state of the article. For some reason, User:Hostagecat did not mention your name in his last post but I think he's talking about the new material that you tried to add here. He finishes with this comment:

a huge amount of text has been added very quickly with no prior discussion or input on the talk page. It's not an issue if this article is updated with properly-cited, clearly-written, relevant text from reliable sources, but the text added is just not up to Wikipedia's content standards in its current form

So in theory he is in favor of making updates, he just doesn't agree you have found the best way. If you review his objections, perhaps you can figure out how to make changes that will satisfy him. If it's impossible to reach agreement, WP:Dispute resolution has some suggestions for what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The post I made on Operation: Doomsday's talk page was basically identical to the response I had made to Ascribe4 on my talk page except I removed their name because I didn't want to personally call someone out on the talk page, it seemed like it would be a bit rude/unhelpful to do that. --Hostagecat (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Hostagecat: You don't have to remove their name; in fact, it helps discussion along because we know who to discuss the content dispute with. Even better, provide the diffs you're referring to. Think of it as a sort of documentation; clarity and transparency helps make other editor's lives easier. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Ascribe4! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Teahouse exchange, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about you on my talk page

Please see this new complaint: User talk:EdJohnston#Ascribe4 still undoing edits, refusing to use article talk page. You were previously warned at the WP:AN3 noticeboard. If you are continuing to edit Operation: Doomsday with no talk page discussion in your favor, you are risking a block. You can respond if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)