User talk:EverythingIsLove

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 5 albert square (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello, I'm Abelmoschus Esculentus. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Executive_Order_13780— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of most streamed artists on Spotify, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drake (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) 09:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of largest companies by revenue. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 17:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem" is that every one of the edits you made that I reviewed ([1] [2] [3] [4]) was unsourced and contained incorrect information. Please cite reliable sources for any change you make, especially when it contradicts the cited sources at the target article. General Ization ^Talk 17:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about founded date. That was the last thing I added. It's not wrong but I understand. The date it was founded varies depending on who you ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverythingIsLove (talk • contribs) 17:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That the information "varies depending on who you ask" is precisely why we require citations of reliable sources for every substantial change that you make. General Ization ^Talk 17:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I'm sorry.

Thanks!

Thanks for your improvements to the Jeffree Star article. I think someone could probably do some copyedits to it but you did do some improvements and I'm glad you decided to. Abequinn14 (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, I was happy to do it. Thank you!

Move warring

If someone contests a move you make, do not repeat that move. Instead, you should start a requested move discussion to gain a consensus for the move. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that Galobtter's restore was the 2nd reversion of the page move, as I had reverted one a few days ago. As I and they said, you need to start a move discussion on the talk page or at requested moves. Any further attempts to move the page may be considered edit warring and may result in a block. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already started it a while ago. Nobody is responding. EverythingIsLove (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EverythingIsLove: That's probably because you made it as an anonymous editor back in February and it's in the archive. If this is something you're serious about, make a new move proposal on the talk page so others can provide input. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it just recently. EverythingIsLove (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made this into a requested move; this should attract more attention to it and make sure this is resolved in 7 to 14 days. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions

Hi. Regarding your edits on Shane Dawson. Firstly, something can be in a source, and still be a point of view. Wikipedia avoids opinions unless they are attributed within the article. Whose opinion is it that Dawson gathered popularity "quickly"? Secondly, I don't see either of the words I removed mentioned in either source. So who says that the docu-series about Jeffree Star and Tanacon are "popular"? How has this been measured?

I think these words are opinions that aren't attributed and therefore appear to be that of Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion and tries to be neutral at all times. The article doesn't lose anything by removing them either. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences just don't make any sense otherwise. Those two series are his most viewed on his channel, so just by the numbers, they're popular. Also, getting half a billion views in 2 years in undeniably quickly, to the point where even "haters" would agree with that. EverythingIsLove (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply.

If the numbers demonstrate they're popular, and the numbers are hard facts, then we don't need to describe them as "popular". We also don't leave the reader wondering by what measure "popular" is being applied. "Popular", like Coca Cola is popular, or "popular" like high school popular, or "popular" when compared to his other videos which aren't so popular?

The same applies how quickly he became popular in 2 years. Does video views = popularity? Something can be watched a lot, and not be popular. You may be right in having the opinion that the views he got were gained quickly, but in comparison to what? What if others think it wasn't so quick? Can they add their POV to the description too? The article just needs to state how many views he was getting and the reader can decide if this was quick or made him popular, by whatever measure.

POV adjectives are dangerous words, and if the article demonstrates through hard facts the numbers, they really aren't required either.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally right, I'm changing the wording. Although popular, by definition, isn't necessarily well-liked.EverythingIsLove (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 6ix9ine, you may be blocked from editing. Please see MOS:INTRO with regard to your addition of excessive detail regarding the artist's legal issues in the lead. "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." If you continue to add this information back after it has been removed (and I know this is at least the second time you have done so), you will be reported for edit warring. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 6ix9ine. If you add in the material that I've removed from the lead under MOS:INTRO again, you're going to be reported for edit warring. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, EverythingIsLove. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Orient Express.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Orient Express.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) 02:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]