User talk:Ben0kto

May 2013

Hello, I'm STATicVerseatide. I wanted to let you know that your recent contributions to Lil B have been reverted or removed because they could be seen to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. STATic message me! 16:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sicx

Hello Ben0kto,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Sicx, may be copied from http://artistwiki.com/sicx. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sicx

A tag has been placed on Sicx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.discogs.com/artist/Sicx. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Woodie (rapper)

A tag has been placed on Woodie (rapper), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Triplestop (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to userspace

I've moved the article to User:Ben0kto/Woodie (rapper) so you can work on proving that Woodie passes notability guidelines. The problem here is that you're kind of fighting an uphill battle here. The article has been removed several times for various different reasons and it was deleted in 2010 for a lack of notability. I've protected the page against recreation, but I'm going to give you the chance to work on this and potentially try to show notability. Sometimes it takes longer to dig for sources. To get it moved back to the mainspace you'll have to run it by someone (an admin, ultimately) to show that the new version passes notability guidelines for musicians.

As far as the sources on the article go, only the AllMusic is somewhat usable to show notability. That's not enough to show that Woodie passes notability guidelines, so we need more coverage in reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Devil Shit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devil Shit 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/Devil Shit until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. STATic message me! 14:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Acid Rap (mixtape)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Acid Rap (mixtape). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Acid Rap. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Acid Rap – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. STATic message me! 02:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Acid Rap a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. 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. 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:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. STATic message me! 02:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Acid Rap shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. STATic message me! 02:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, Acid Rap the mixtape can not by copy-pasted moved to Acid Rap (mixtape), because it destroys the page history. If you want to create an article on the genre, consider creating that article at Acid Rap (genre) since there is no proven primary topic. STATic message me! 02:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about what you consider necessary, you cannot copy-paste articles to different titles as you did when moving Acid Rap to Acid Rap (mixtape). The genre is not the primary topic, and there are still no reliable sources that prove the genre is even notable enough for the article. This is the last time I am going to tell you, do not revert at Acid Rap, you cannot change the topic of an article without discussion.STATic message me! 03:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just do not revert at Acid Rap again, and if you want to create an article on the genre do so at Acid Rap (music genre), it would be in line with Trap (music genre), and Drill (music genre). STATic message me! 03:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chance The Rapper may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

! scope="row" | ''[[[[Acid Rap (mixtape)|Acid Rap]] ''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Ben0kto reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: ). Thank you. STATic message me! 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warning at Acid Rap

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Acid Rap. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Ben0kto reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: 24 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ed. I didn't mean to start a war with my edits. Ben0kto (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article

Hey, I just thought I'd let you know... hijacking another article to create something about the same topic is considered to be a big, BIG no-no on Wikipedia. What should be done in these instances is to create the page under a new listing such as Acid Rap (genre), as the page listed at simply "Acid Rap" should be something that is most highly associated with the name. In this instance, it's the album. Trying to move the album to another article is considered to be inappropriate since you won't have the article history to view. It's also inappropriate to try to continually revert back to your version without first discussing these things on the talk page. Even if the genre is older, we don't go by what is older but rather which of the two is more well known and covered.

I also noticed a general lack of reliable sources for the genre. You have listings that mention the genre, but nothing to show that it's so notable that it merits an article. New genres of music are created all the time. Some become notable, some don't. We have to have coverage in places such as articles by trusted sources such as XXL or Rolling Stone that cover the genre in detail. Coverage in academic texts is also something that can be used. Links to blogs, tweets, and Urban Dictionary are not usable as reliable sources. I would actually recommend that before creating new pages, that you solicit help from more experienced editors. I've noted that many of your pages in general have a serious lack of coverage in reliable sources, so I'd really like you to become more experienced with discerning between what is or isn't usable as a reliable source before creating any new articles. I like your enthusiasm, but articles have to be covered in reliable sources in order to really remain on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Girl, I appreciate your concerns regarding mainstream sources; unfortunately, this topic concerns an underground genre not listed by many of your favorite mainstream sources here at wikipedia like Rolling Stone Magazine. That doesn't change the fact that the term and style have been around for decades, regardless of how "notable" you personally feel it is, or a recent rapper's mixtape (and article) made a few months ago named after it. Once unblocked, I will continue to make constructive edits following WP policy to the best of my ability. Links to the original source of the content itself, such as the genre's official website, also count as reliable sources here at wikipedia. More sources are to be added sooner or later to remain on here. Thanks Ben0kto (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to put a genre in parentheses. It should also be noted that the Acid Rap article was never hijacked until it was moved to the mixtape article instead of its original redirect to Esham. Ben0kto (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need reliable sources to show notability. That's the 100% requirement for notability for articles. Something can exist, but as I've said multiple, multiple times already in various different places, existing is not notability. We also can't keep an article or really even create an article in the mainspace with the assumption that eventually sources that pass our requirements will be added by someone at some point in time. The sources need to be available now. Not two weeks or two years from now. They need to be on the article at this very point in time. As far as what should or shouldn't be in parentheses, I'll explain it to you again: it doesn't matter which came first. When we have several things that have the same name, whatever is considered to be the most notable and high profile is the one that we have the basic name at. For example, Michael Jackson goes directly to the page of the now deceased artist, as he's the most notable person by that name on Wikipedia and as such is most likely to be what people are looking for when they search by that name. He isn't, however, the only person by that name nor is he the oldest person by that name. Something being older or "first" means little to nothing as far as what should be at a specific target name. It also doesn't matter whether or not the article was initially a redirect to any specific article. What matters is first whether or not the genre is notable enough for its own article on Wikipedia and then whether the mixtape or the genre is the most noteworthy of the two. You cannot automatically say that the genre is more notable (and thus the more likely search term) because it was there first. I want to stress this, as I've said this before and I can vouch that this is the common standard on Wikipedia. What works against the genre is that there was an article at one point in time but it was deleted due to a lack of notability outside of the performer. No matter how badly you want this genre to have an article at that specific spot, you have to go by Wikipedia's policies. Several people have tried to tell you about notability, naming protocol, edit warring, and all number of things, which you seem to have mostly ignored. These things aren't going to change anytime soon. You can argue all you want, but in the end this is how Wikipedia works. Being "first" doesn't mean that it's the most notable and what the article should be named. Even if you feel that the article was "hijacked", the end result is that by our article naming protocol the mixtape (which has proven notability) should be at this title to begin with. Any redirects for the music genre would have to be in parentheses. This does is not intended to diminish the genre or make it non-existent, just shows that as far as Wikipedia goes the genre redirects to the artist's article and isn't the main thing at that name. I don't know how many times I can explain naming protocol to you before it feels less like you don't understand and more like you're willfully misinterpreting and ignoring protocols to suit your personal purposes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Acid_Rap#Notability regarding names. Ben0kto (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Devil Shit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Devil Shit 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/Devil Shit (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ben0kto (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Both for the second reason listed here and to contribute to the 2nd AfD Discussion Ben0kto (talk) 1:35 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I remain unconvinced that you do in fact understand the reason you were blocked and will avoid such behaviour in the future (you had enough messages about edit warring to have given up a good deal sooner than you did), and since the AFD discussion will run for another week, you will be able to contribute to it after your block expires tomorrow. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Yunshui. It's unfortunate that you weren't convinced. I am in fact a new and relatively inexperienced editor here, and I didn't know about those policies. Hopefully this article doesn't get deleted before I have time to contribute more to it, but I am always open for more discussion. Thanks Ben0kto (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily believe that you didn't know the policies when you started out here (who does?) but you were definitely made aware of them fairly quickly, and you continued to edit-war even after warnings - even after a case was opened against you, in fact. That, to me, suggests that you either didn't read or didn't understand the policy, and so I'm not willing to unblock you without evidence to the contrary. If your next unblock request explains what you think you did wrong, and provides a brief summary (in your own words) of the policies involved, then you're much more likely to be unblocked - but just saying, "oh yeah, I get it now," isn't enough to convince me (or pretty much any other admin) that you actually do. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, I did not ignore the warnings but simply wasn't aware because I did not come across all of the other users' comments as I was focusing mainly on making my own edits within the article. Some links to key points within the policy worthy of knowing could be helpful, to avoid future blocks. Ben0kto (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the primary point is: don't edit war. If someone reverts a change that you've made - even if you don't understand why, even if they haven't explained why, even if you can't fathom why any sane person would disagree with your edit - the next step is to engage them in discussion. Use the article's talkpage to put across the reasoning behind your changes, and engage with their reasons for changing it back. The best case scenario is that one of you convinces the other and the article is changed or left in the state that you both agree on. If you can't reach a compromise, then there are several ways to get other editors involved in order to help reach an amicable conclusion. At no point in this process do you arbitrarily revert back to your preferred version.

People are fond of referencing the "bright line" rule of 3RR, which basically says: if you revert three times in twenty-four hours during an edit war, you will automatically be blocked. Whilst that's true, it's quite possible - and totally legitimate - for users to be blocked for two or in some cases even one revert: three reverts will get you blocked, but edit warring is still a blockable offence even if you studiously avoid crossing the 3RR line.

Probably the most useful page I can point you to is Bold, revert, discuss, which is the widely accepted guideline for avoiding edit wars. Have a read of that (it's basically my first paragraph above, writ large) and then come back and request unblocking again. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know that because of my misunderstanding of the guidelines. I will try to read more about what other users are posting but I also have to focus on correcting my edits at the same time. Ben0kto (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

By the way, you seem to have developed a habit of marking nearly all your edits as "minor". Some are, but most of your edits don't fall under that banner. See Minor edits for an explanation, but basically, if you're doing more than a minor spelling correction, it's not a minor edit (and even spelling corrections can be controversial). Yunshui 雲‍水 13:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yunshui. I am glad to see you are monitoring my edits well. I do consider most of them minor edits, unless I'm adding lots of relevant information at once. What do you consider a minor edit? Does it have to be as small as a typo? Ben0kto (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought it was all subjective. I will make sure to follow up with any links you post here as soon as I recognize them. Ben0kto (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, WP:MINOR contains the full policy. In brief, any edit that changes the meaning of a page or that could conceivably be disputed is not a minor edit. Therefore leaving a message on a talkpage or discussion thread, recreating a page, undoing another user's edit, adding a controversial reference or adding unsourced information does not merit the "minor edit" tag.

Much as I hate to keep hitting you with an alphabet soup of policies, you really need to read the reliable sources guideline as well. Youtube, blogs, Twitter - all very much not in the reliable sources camp. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yunshui. Will do. Ben0kto (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to echo reading over the reliable sources guidelines. The problem is that almost all of the sources you added to the article for Devil Shit are inappropriate for Wikipedia in general in various ways. Merchant sources such as iTunes are wildly inappropriate to use as sources in any way, shape, or form. Their primary purpose is to sell you something and regardless of the information they impart, they should never be used as a reliable, trivial, or even primary source. Secondly, the YouTube links are almost entirely unusable as many are not uploaded by the people that created the music or represent the artist. This is seen as a copyright violation and it's also something that shouldn't be linked to. In almost every case the only time you should link to a video is if it gives notability... which none of these do. Thirdly, the rest of the links are primary, which will never, ever, ever give notability. Never. You could have a primary source that establishes that someone won a Grammy for a devil shit song, but it still can't give notability. You should only list primary sources after you have a reliable source posted by a non-involved second party. The other problem is that with a lot of these sources the claims of devil shit aren't backed up in the actual source. For instance, this Twitter account doesn't say anything about the artist creating anything in this music genre. Saying that the artist performs devil shit based solely on the Twitter account is considered to be original research. You need reliable second party things that back up the information, but even then you have to understand that verification that the genre is performed by notable or non-notable persons is not enough to show notability for the genre to have an article. A genre can exist, but existing is not notability. Even if you re-add all of the sources and the performers without Wikipedia articles, that won't show that the genre is notable. If anything, it actually does a little more to injure the case here than to show notability. If you have 80+ sources, all of which are unusable for notability purposes and most of which are linked to performers that don't have articles (which many automatically presume means "non-notable" even if this isn't the case), then this tends to make many automatically assume that the topic in question is less notable, which means that they might not search as hard as they otherwise would. It's not right that this happens, but it happens. Sometimes in AfDs less is more. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Acid Rap (album)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Acid Rap (album). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Acid Rap. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Acid Rap – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. STATic message me! 14:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with Acid Rap

Do not and I repeat DO NOT continue to re-create the article for the genre acid rap. You have been warned about making such big controversial moves without first reaching a consensus and proving notability for the genre on the talk page for Acid Rap. This has already become a reversion war and several people have tried to talk to you about why moves like this should not be done without having a discussion first, especially when the notability for the genre in question is dubious per Wikipedia's guidelines. I don't want to threaten you with a longer ban, but if you continue to ignore other editors' pleas for you to talk things out before making big controversial edits and you continue to try to revert back to the versions you prefer, you run the risk of getting banned for a longer period of time or permanently. Even if your intentions are good, these things are seen as disruptive in nature and being disruptive without at least trying to cooperate with other editors can end with further, possibly permanent bands. I don't want it to end like that, which is why I'm warning you about all of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. The discussion is open. Ben0kto (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper course should have been to open up a discussion on the Acid Rap mixtape page BEFORE moving the article to a new entry. Moving the mixtape and creating the entry anyway is wildly inappropriate and you've been warned about making big controversial moves and edits already. Please for the love of all that's holy, STOP trying to add your article to Wikipedia and trying to make the article how you want it before discussing things. I really, really, really don't want this to become bigger than what it is. 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Would you like me to revert the article? If that is what I need to do not to be blocked, I will. Otherwise make that controversial move yourself (and be sure to explain why on the talk page this time). I am not trying to be blocked here for adding facts. Ben0kto (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, we've tried to explain things to you several times as well as to flat out beg that you discuss big edits on the article in question, which you've ignored. I don't know how much more blatant we can be about asking you to follow proper procedure and notability guidelines. You say you're trying to add facts, but in doing so your editing has become highly disruptive. You aren't trying to show notability through reliable sources and you aren't trying to discuss things before trying to create articles that have caused some pretty big arguments on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I'm reporting this to the other administrators because I don't see where you're actually interested in learning the guidelines and protocol here on Wikipedia. You've been blocked for edit warring and people have tried to talk to you. You haven't shown any sign that you've listened at all or have any interest in working with others or compromising- something that is so direly important as far as editing here in the long term goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who isn't interested in learning the guidelines and protocol here on Wikipedia? Shouldn't all editors be? Ben0kto (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am clearly trying to show notability through reliable sources. I just added 2 or 3 completely new (and both official) sources hours ago (both first and third party). Ben0kto (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have been warned about not using talk pages; NOT making edits and creating articles themselves. (per WP:BRD) Ben0kto (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The details I've given you were fairly explicit about showing notability and others have warned you about revert wars. Trying to move an article to an entirely new space falls under revert wars. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the details of showing notability are explicit. Please check the sources changed and added already, including a third party text. More sources are to be added sooner or later to remain on here. Ben0kto (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated, it's been an underground genre for decades regardless of how "notable" you personally feel it is, lack of favorable mainstream reviews, or a 2013 mixtape named after it. As also previously stated, I am a relatively inexperienced user here, and I may need some extra help learning all of the rules regarding revert wars (which I did not know article moves counted as). Ben0kto (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first doesn't always mean that something deserves to be at the article space more. Sometimes when something is considered to be more notable than the other, the more notable thing is placed at the basic article name rather than the older of the two topics. It's especially common when you have something that might not have individual notability from the person who created it. As far as inexperience go, you are new as far as editing goes but people have gone to great detail to mention various things and to point you in the direction of various guidelines. If you are new and inexperienced, the worst thing you can do is to make big moves about things that you are unsure about or feel that you know little to nothing about. You need to talk about big edits rather than make them and cause a big disruption. I'm not sure how much more detail we can go in without having someone sit physically beside you and walk you through everything step by step. At some point "I'm inexperienced" ceases to be an excuse for actions that have been clearly noted to be controversial. Regardless of how much or how little you know about the process, you've seen enough to know that other editors have an issue with the edits and continuing to try to make articles fit your specific wishes is not the right answer. At that point you should stop and think that maybe, just maybe, you might not be the one making the right actions here and that perhaps you should discuss this with the editor(s) in question before making a move that is clearly controversial, has been reverted several times, has resulted in you getting blocked for edit warring, and might not even fit notability guidelines. Being inexperienced isn't really a valid excuse in this situation, in my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Girl, it would be nice if you were to add something meaningful to the actual discussion rather than picking at my edits specifically. Do you have a specific reason why a 2013 mixtape by a 20-year-old should be credited for a 25+ year-old term? Is it because you have read some album reviews, and enjoy the album? Please try to actually contribute something to the talk page, rather than just attacking me and trying to have me blocked. I will be more than willing to discuss it with you. Ben0kto (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first, who originated, and who (and which) is more notable are ALWAYS the most important things in referencing. Not just Wikipedia. Ben0kto (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment above. The basic gist is that "first" is not how things work around here. I used Michael Jackson as an example of this. Basically, Michael Jackson is not the oldest person by that name, yet he's the one that the name itself goes to. Any other person, regardless of how old they were/are, is referred to in parentheses. This is the naming protocol on Wikipedia and has been in effect for years now. It's unlikely to change anytime soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Acid_Rap#Notability concerning the naming process. Ben0kto (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason I'm "picking" at your edits is because you continue to edit war and create controversial edits when several people, most of which are established editors with a long editing history, have tried to explain to you why these edits should not be done and why the main article should remain for the mixtape. We've also tried to explain notability guidelines to you, which is actually the most direly important of the two. What came first is irrelevant. What matters here is notability and in the end I really feel that you're arguing for the inclusion of something that isn't even notable enough for its own article at this point in time. Sometimes things exist for a long time but aren't the most notable things by that name. Things can exist, but existing is not notability. People have tried to explain this to you and you just seem to be willfully ignoring this. Even if you created an article for the genre, the article in question would likely end up deleted. The main article name of just "Acid Rap" would revert back to the article for the album and the genre would be renamed "Acid rap (genre)" and redirected to the artist's page. I can pretty much predict that this is how it's going to work out even if you were to create the article for the genre at "Acid rap (genre)". Now before you try to argue "but the genre is older", keep in mind that you have openly stated several times that you are not versed in the guidelines and protocol here at Wikipedia. I don't mean this to sound nasty, but has it crossed your mind that you might be wrong in insisting that we move the mixtape to another article and either create an article for the genre or keep it as a redirect? This goes against many of the protocol and guidelines here on Wikipedia, which again... you have openly stated that you know little to nothing about. Rather than trying to fight a war which I'll openly say you're highly unlikely to win, it would be wiser to try to work with the other editors, which would most likely mean accepting that the mixtape will remain at the main article. Right now your best course of action would be to stop trying to create the article for the genre and to simply find sourcing for the genre that passes our WP:RS guidelines. If you are curious about what counts as a reliable source, post the links on the talk page of the article and ask if they're reliable sources that show notability. If you want, you can also run them through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, a noticeboard that only focuses on telling you what is or isn't a reliable source. Please remember that things that show that a genre exists does not automatically show notability. Existing is not notability and right now you should focus on learning the protocol before making any big controversial edits. Editing is not helpful if it just perpetuates a problem, which is the biggest issue with what you're doing right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

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. Thank you.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

DrKiernan (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DrKiernan. I did not mean to start a war with my edits. Ben0kto (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute board notification

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

It is a mistake and/or error to post to someone's talk page asking him or her to join (or engage in) a conversation in which they are not allowed to (or cannot) join (or engage in) at the time. This should have been posted either when my unblock was requested and approved, or held until the block expired. (per WP:MISTAKES) Ben0kto (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is also disrespectful for you to continue your personal attacks on me as you can see by looking at my talk page that I am just a beginner user here, and you are using your WP:BIAS to disregard and try to shut down Underground music which exists and is notable, regardless of your personal opinion and take on the matter, and how many books you can google. Next time you want to make some useful contributions, how about creating some interesting (not reverting others') articles yourself? Ben0kto (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making personal attacks, I'm trying to instruct you on how to edit properly and keep you from getting blocked further. You say that you're a beginner user, but you have ignored everyone's attempts to help you. You've said that you didn't mean to disrupt and expressed some understanding, but then you turn around and continue with the behaviors you exhibited before. As far as creating articles go, I've made 147 articles since I signed up with Wikipedia years ago. That's not including the hundreds of articles I've helped save from deletion. The reason I say that is because I want to emphasize that I'm not some person who goes around arbitrarily deleting things because of some random reason. I also want to point that out because I'm very well aware of what it takes to prove notability for an article. Now you need to be careful as you're referring to the article as "yours" which shows WP:OWNERSHIP. You don't own the article, so be careful about referring to it as such. As far as the dispute stuff goes, I made a note that you were banned and that some discussion would need to potentially take place on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining; it should be understandable how insults on one's intelligence or speediness to understand extreme detail, could be regarded as personal attacks (per WP:Personal attacks. Ben0kto (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: I did not refer to the article as mine or claim to own it; if I accidentally did please let me know where so I can undo that. However, the term is owned.

Speedy deletion nomination of Acid Rap (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Acid Rap (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Cindy(talk) 23:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Scientifik

A tag has been placed on Scientifik requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Oddbodz (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Scientifik, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Oddbodz (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Capital Steez

A tag has been placed on Capital Steez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. PK T(alk) 03:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

It seems like the Speedy deletions are taking up most of the page by now. Maybe there is a better way to organize them all, like a new section. Ben0kto (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dre D

A tag has been placed on Dre D requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Kadzi (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Chunk (rapper)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Chunk (rapper), Ben0kto!

Wikipedia editor Sulfurboy just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

To reply, leave a comment on Sulfurboy's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Speedy deletion nomination of Kenny Clutch

A tag has been placed on Kenny Clutch, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young Droop

The entire content of the article I deleted in 2008 was "Young Droop born in Merced, California is a underground rapper that has been rappin for 11 years. He is know for his fast rapping skills.". Feel free to post a new article citing the sources that you mentioned on my talk page. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted list item

November 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Yo Gotti, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. STATic message me! 03:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A valid reason is always left in the edit summary, thank you. I had only removed your non-constructive, false claim (that the first source is referring someone else as Lil Yo) and the extra sources I listed which aren't needed to back up factual claims.

A discussion occurred, and the talk page documents that. There are ways to "close" a discussion, but the conversation must always remain there to have history of said discussion. STATic message me! 03:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not start a discussion on the DJ Sound article's talk page or continue the Yo Gotti discussion on the related article's talk page. As I stated multiple times, Wikipedia deletion policy does not apply here. Just because the article hasn't yet been perfectly sourced doesn't mean the subject hasn't, or won't be, significantly covered. This information meets music guidelines. Ben0kto (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started an AfD discussion rather than just mark it for speedy deletion, so the Wikipedia community may give their opinions on whether the subject is notable and meets WP:MUSICBIO. Again you are free to comment there. STATic message me! 05:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The community already saw it (see page view stats.) and you are the one who wants it deleted the most. Ignoring relevant facts is not a good thing to do when you are contributing to an encyclopedia, even if you think some of said facts have questioned notability. The artist(s) meet(s) WP:MUSIC guidelines. Ben0kto (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few (most views are probably you and a few select IPs) decided not to nominate it means nothing. You should be happy I started a discussion rather than just nominating it for speedy deletion, but since you prefer that I will just do that next time, okay? I have been here much much longer than you and have created over 20 hip hop BLPs and almost 200 hip hop articles in general, while you have had around over 20 BLPs speedy deleted, so you are not really the person to be saying who understands what notability is. Explain what points of WP:MUSICBIO DJ Sound meets at the AfD discussion. STATic message me! 18:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough admins saw it, reviewed it, and edited it before you came along and tagged it again. It's great that you contribute a lot here, but if you want to come along and tag every single article related to this, you're going to have to explain why the artist(s) and his/their works do not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, preferably on their respective talk pages. Ben0kto (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single admin has edited the page, beside the one that removed the SD tag. Also I just checked, the page has yet to even be reviewed. I just did, I am sure you got the notification for it. I already explained why at the AfD, now it is up to you to prove AT THE AFD DISCUSSION PAGE that the DJ meets WP:MUSICBIO. Also again, a living person cannot be a work of another living person. STATic message me! 19:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may have different opinions on this because of my underground music background and your mainstream viewpoints, however it is my opinion that it is up to you to prove that the group, DJ, albums and Mario Mims (Lil Yo) do not meet WP:MUSIC. Ben0kto (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Frayser Click

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Frayser Click. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – DJ Sound. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at DJ Sound – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. STATic message me! 18:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Frayser Click, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STATic message me! 19:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR I will now stop editing for a few days to avoid being blocked. That does not stop this relevant, factual information from being part of the artist's career. Ben0kto (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop leaving warnings for Static? He is allowed to remove warnings from his talk page, and when he does so they shouldn't be restored. Ask an admin for attention if you think further action is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mark, I won't leave anymore warnings on his talk page. I am also allowed to remove warnings from my talk page. I did not revert 3 times, I left a new warning.

Ok, it's probably good to take a step back here and let an admin decide what to do with that page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Ben0kto/Woodie (rapper)

User:Ben0kto/Woodie (rapper), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ben0kto/Woodie (rapper) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ben0kto/Woodie (rapper) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of deceased hip hop artists for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of deceased hip hop artists 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/List of deceased hip hop artists until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Speedy deletion nomination of Woodie (musical artist)

A tag has been placed on Woodie (musical artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.lyricshall.com/biography/Woodie/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ben0kto. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ryan Wood.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ryan Wood.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of deceased hip hop artists for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of deceased hip hop artists 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/List of deceased hip hop artists (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Anomalies of Artificial Origin

The article The Anomalies of Artificial Origin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]