User talk:Mirrored7

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

Hello

Hi, sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, I'm not very skilled in editing on Wikipedia. But I noticed there was some incorrect information etc on the page for singer Allie X, I want to correct it but I messed up with the references. Could you help me out?Beminemylove (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures

Probably better to ask at the WP:Teahouse or WP:Helpdesk, try the Teahouse first. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) Mirrored7 (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana discography

Am I missing out something here? I really want to know. Repeatedly pointing out not just by you that she is a streaming artist and that those worldwide numbers don't matter while at the time you are in a sales section that has noting to with nothing but sales.

If you can find other ww sales, add them up as well, it is welcomed to contribute. We work here with information that is available in the end.

Dhoffryn (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Why do you care so much? I clearly said that it doesn't make sense if we don't have sources for their other album sales either. As mentioned earlier, Grande is more of a streaming artist. Therefore, it would make more sense to include units (sales plus streaming), but they are no sources for this either. To get to the point, why only include worldwide sales of ONE album when if she's clearly not someone who sells albums anyway? Why not let it go completely then? Mirrored7 (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was a ww source of sales+streaming of her album it won't be included on the sales section of a discography of that page because it is ment only for pure sales (like it says sales, not adjusted sales, Nielsen report in detail breaks down sections about sales/adjusted sales/tracks/streams). And how can you say she does not sell albums when a reliable source IFPI publishes that in the streaming era she is a on a list pure sales on a global scale she is amongst top 10 seller list? Dhoffryn (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in general, she's not an album seller. This is her first year in the top ten there. That's why we don't have any sources of the years before. Her certification and sales doesn't add up. She's one of the biggest artist right now, and these numbers simply don't show it. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Mirrored7, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
D🎅ggy54321 ^(ho-ho-ho) 14:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

D🎅ggy54321 ^(ho-ho-ho) 14:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Mirrored7, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021.
Happy editing,
BawinV (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

BawinV (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Mirrored7, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
D💘ggy54321 ^(xoxo😘) 03:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

==

Swift's lead is long? You sure?

I would like to underscore that, in case you have not noticed already, the lead of the article you love to edit on—Ariana Grande—is longer than Swift's lead, despite Grande having 5 less albums than Swift. For someone with 11 individual albums in her repertoire, Swift's lead is in the right size, in fact shorter than it should be, in order to fit the details in the lead. Grande's lead should be half the size it is currently, for someone who has less than half the albums and singles Swift has. Do you mind explaining me this? If you cannot address this blatant bias, then I can take this to the noticeboard or push the Grande article for a peer review to see what they have to say. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about Taylor Swift's article. In particular, I find not only the top too long, but some other sections as well. I understand you seem to like Swift as an artist, and yes I like some of Grande's music, but even I try to make her article a little more specific. Tell me, why should it be taken into account, that she has the longest number in history, even though she broke other much more relevant records, that are not mentioned in the lead? Or all the names of her recordings? I opened a talk page and I want you to write there, why you think the lead isn't too long. Kind regards. Mirrored7 (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande discography and separating "holiday" singles

Mirrored, for future reference, please do not make a very significant re-order of a discography then tell editors in an edit summary if they disagree that they need to discuss it. You are allowed to make WP:BOLD edits, yes, but significant changes to highly watched featured articles like this should be proposed on the talk page first and you should expect opposition. Thank you. Ss112 05:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, chiming in here...you requested protection for Ariana Grande discography...I have removed your request, because it didn't follow the procedure, formatting etc. (which isn't really important). The request for protection would have been denied, because the disruption isn't simply heavy enough to warrant protection of any kind. Please read our protection policy to learn more. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Editor on Taylor Swift's page making edits on Ariana Grande's page diminishing her accomplishments

Hello Mirrored7, I noticed you were a frequent editor of Ariana Grande's page. I noticed recently a frequent editor on Taylor Swift's page (Ronherry) has made large removal edits on Ariana's page that diminishes accomplishments in her career while subsequently doing the opposite on Swift's page. Instead of adding sources to the content, he is removing large amounts of content from Ariana's page. I wanted to make you aware of this person in the future when they make edits on her page. Jaidenhere (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Ariana Grande

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ariana Grande, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications

Hello! Could you add a Gold certification from Portugal to "My Favorite Part", in her "as featured artist" table please? And "Everyday" is now certified Gold in the UK AnthonyFG (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UK is already updated, look it up. Portugal isn't included as one of the countries, in the table, but it's noticed on the song's article page. Mirrored7 (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see, thank you for clarifying! AnthonyFG (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Daily Double

Hello. I'm not sure if you are the editor who originally added Hits Daily Double to Ariana Grande discography, but since you seem to care a lot about sales figures on that article, I presume you have seen it and were okay with its inclusion even if you didn't add it yourself. Hits Daily Double's figures have been called into question before. They are not an official provider of sales. They can only estimate because they're not the ones that officially track them. Often good estimates, yes, but they don't receive official figures so their reliability is questionable at best, therefore we shouldn't use their predictions. Besides, the source used was not archived and no longer showed anything about Grande because Positions came out three years ago. I removed the sales figure for Positions entirely because I also don't believe 42,000 is accurate any longer either and presumed editors who watch the page (including yourself) would not want an entirely outdated sales figure there. Ss112 18:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the clarification! Mirrored7 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this was you editing logged out, I don't think the edit should have been made unexplained, as I already explained my logic in the edit summary and I have just started a thread on the talk page. Sales are typically located to the left of certifications on discography articles, as the sequence of columns is more logical—chart positions, sales, and then certifications, as certifications follow from the accumulation of sales (and sales units and so on). Also, the singles section has the column to the left of certifications as well, and having the columns in different locations on the article makes it inconsistent. Ss112 03:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is the usual way, but Grande came at a time when sales were declining. She is a streaming artist, so I think the certifications should come first. It's been like this for a long time. I don't think anyone reading the article will be irritated by this. However, I agree with your other changes. If you really disagree with this, I'm open to discussing it again on the talk page. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either make the column order in all tables consistent or leave it alone. Why would you re-order the column in the studio albums section and leave the rest inconsistent? And like the sales column isn't before the certifications column left-to-right for other streaming artists too? What kind of argument is this? Being "first" left-to-right does not mean sales are more important—it simply makes more sense because as sales accrue, they help to constitute certifications. The way in which you take issue with any substantial edit to Grande's discography like you own the article is irritating. First it was the arbitrary separation of her "holiday" singles, now it's column orders. You've now removed a valid US first-week sales figure and for what reason? You left "+" as an edit summary when you removed data. I wasn't aware a plus sign communicated subtraction. Ss112 09:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus to instruct users not to add sales figures as they appear on Grande's discography. Even if you did, messages like these are a violation of WP:HIDDEN: "They should not be used to instruct other editors not to perform certain edits". If you continue to make edits arbitrarily reverting valid information and nitpicky-type edits on this discography, I will be informing an administrator. This ownership-type behaviour has been going on for years now. Cool it. Ss112 09:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant whether you added these messages or not. Don't restore or add messages like this per WP:HIDDEN. You cannot command other editors what to do in hidden messages. That is a guideline, meaning YOU and all editors should follow it. The only thing you have here is your opinion on thinking it's a "good idea" to keep it. Sales change all the time—year-end results will not be complete either and will be outdated quickly. Hidden messages in violation of a guideline next to album titles are not going to stop anything. That's not where users add sales anyway. If you make another revert on this article today, I'm informing an administrator. You do not own this article and you need to stop acting like you do. Ss112 12:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also really need to stop relying on "it's been there for a long time" as a reason to keep things. It's not a valid reason. We have a guideline telling us not to add things like this. There are plenty of things on Wikipedia that shouldn't be there that have been there for a long time. Age is not a reason to keep things on Wikipedia. Ss112 12:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande status as Princess of Pop and Princess of Christmas on Impact section

Hi @Mirrored7 i just wanted to know if its possible to add on Impact section a paragraph where we describe Ariana as Princess of Pop, many relevant articles and sources are mentioning, like: https://www.billboard.com/music/pop/ariana-grande-justin-bieber-collaboration-reactions-9369960/ https://www.wmagazine.com/story/ariana-grande-billboard-speech https://bnnbreaking.com/arts/music/ariana-grande-from-broadway-to-pop-icon-a-journey-through-music-and-impact https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2021/2/ariana-grande-shatters-20th-guinness-world-records-title-following-success-of-hit-647433 Also, Vogue magazine mentions that Ariana had a major impact on making artistical videos, so many artist can do the same, here's the article: https://www.vogue.com/article/thank-god-were-dancing-in-music-videos-again And finally, if it's possible, you can add the "Princess pf Christmas" as well, here I have the Billboard article, I don't know of it's relevant, but it can work: https://www.billboard.com/music/latin/camila-cabello-white-house-christmas-performance-1235013252/ And this is another mention from people magazine: https://people.com/ariana-grande-celebrates-santa-tell-me-anniversary-tiktok-8407591

Thank you so much for your time, I hope this will be enough to credit Ariana and her undeniable impact on music. 181.199.38.0 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you.

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		message I hope I did this right! I am giving you this barnstar, for your extensive work and help with protecting the article for Ariana Grande, in addition to your major contributions to the article. I believe this is well deserved! My first time awarding a barnstar goes to you.

AskeeaeWiki (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023: Do not restore guideline-violating hidden messages

Your recent editing history at Ariana Grande discography shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about 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. Ss112 12:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more revert on this article today (or tomorrow, directly outside of the 24-hour period) will be a violation of WP:3RR, and with the way you've been acting on Grande's discography since 2020 this will probably result in you receiving a short block. I wouldn't continue acting this way and reverting everybody if I were you considering your block log for the same behaviour. Ss112 13:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage a discussion on the article talk page to try and sort out whatever issues there are here. Edit warring, including the slow burning kind, is a no no. Let's all try to get along and work towards a common objective, which is always a better article. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande

You have now been asked five times to discuss your reverts on TALK:Ariana Grande. I urge you to contribute to the article constructively and collaborate with others. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, just to note that I see you have been warned repeatedly about your editing behaviour on this article, and I'd suggest that everyone has been more than generous and patient with you. You really need to start demonstrating that you are making a very real effort to follow policy and behaviour guidelines.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, if I see one more undiscussed revert to your preferred version, you will be blocked indefinitely from editing the article. You should consider this a final warning. Widr (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've already replied on Ariana Grande's talk page. I haven't see the warning. I'm open for any discussions. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Ariana Grande) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2024 (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).

Mirrored7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey, can you please unblock me. I really haven't seen your warning. I have been editor to Ariana Grande's page for a long time. I've already replied on Ariana Grande's talk page, before I even saw your warning or even the other editor's messages. I meant no harm with my edits and am always open to discussion. Please. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are partially blocked from a single article, and you have given no reason here that you should have access to that article to make edits; your history of edit warring makes it difficult to trust your claims that you will avoid edit warring. The history of blocks should have been warning enough, but you were also warned on this page. If you don't pay attention to warnings, this is what happens. You will have to build up a history of collaboration on the talk page before we restore your access to the article itself. We just can't trust you right now. Good block. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2024 (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.

Nonsense. You finally went to the talk page when you found yourself blocked from the article. You were asked to do that several times before, but instead have continued your slow edit warring for years, because apparently you think that you own the article and are the only one who gets to decide how it should be. That's not how collaborative editing works. This is your seventh block for edit warring, second time for the Ariana Grande article. Unblocking you will not benefit anyone, least of all you. Widr (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I knew, that you would say that, because of the time stamps. But I really just got to read the messages after I posted on the talk page. Why I should ignore your warning, at the risk to get blocked? I'm always open for discussion, even in the past, I've had discussions with other editors and tried my best to keep it objective and to avoid any edit warring. You're right, it's not my article, and sometimes I react impulsive, but that's, because the article is important to me. I reversed Escape Orbit, because the lead has been like this for a while, and I told him that we should discuss it before changing it, because he seemed truly the only one to have an issue with it. I would appreciate it if you could undo the block or at least give an expired date. I try from now on, to better myself, hold back and avoid any warring. Mirrored7 (talk) 09:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Not every statement needs to be an unblock request, only one open request is needed at a time. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot I can understand. But like I said, I haven't seen that particular warning, I would never ignore something like that. It's not like, I'm someone with whom you can't have a discussion with at all. I always offer any editor to discuss it on the talk page, if they are any disagreements. Collaboration on which talk page? The Ariana Grande talk page? I'm already in a discussion there right now.

Can you at least give me an expiry date for my block? I admit, that I need a break from the article, but “indefinitely” seems too harsh, as I really meant no harm with my edits. I understand your concerns because of my history, but please give it a thought. It isn't like I've had my last block even months ago. I really try to better myself and avoid situations like this in the future. Mirrored7 (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting an end date on the block does nothing in terms of you showing us that you understand the reason for the block and won't repeat it. We don't want you to just wait out the block, we want you to convince us that the reasons for the block will not recur. You have not given a reason that you need access to the article right at this moment, at least no reason that cannot be handled with an edit request or discussion on the article talk page. You can make another unblock request to attempt to convince another administrator, but I think this unlikely to succeed. 331dot (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. @331dot While I understand why I was blocked in general, the main reason, which led to my block in the first place, was a conflict with Escape Orbit which arose regarding the lead's first paragraph. He altered it, even though it had been that way for a long time. I asked him to discuss it on the talk page, before altering. I later found there was a discussion, but I was unaware until yesterday. It was a misunderstanding from my side.

2. I don't expect an immediate unblock, but an indefinite one isn't beneficial either. If I remain blocked, you won't witness how I handle situations that initially led to the block. It's ineffective, doesn't resolve the situation in itself, and won't demonstrate my understanding or improvement.

3. In the future, I'll address issues and will prioritize constructive discussions on the talk page before making immediate revisions and engaging in edit wars

4. Despite my occasional impulsive edits, my years of dedicated editing on the article reflect good intentions and harmlessness. It would be great, if you could give it a thought. I would appreciate another shot. Mirrored7 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Why haven't you replied to me yet? What should be my next move from now on? Is there a chance that my block can be changed to a temporary one? Mirrored7 (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Not sure why you've summoned me here; you need to make a new unblock request for someone else to review. You are only blocked from a single article, you can edit the rest of the nearly 7 million articles here. If you have some reason to need to access the Ariana Grande article that you can't handle on the talk page, you will need to say what that is. 331dot (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Right now, I don't have to have access to the Ariana Grande article. However, I don't want someone to vandalize or take some information out that are beneficial for the article. It happened, most of the time, that some editors came and removed certain paragraphs randomly, without even discussing it on the talk page. Yesterday there was edit war because of a blurry lead image. It's just frustrating that I have no access, when it's needed to and my rights are taking away, even if I have been one of the main editors of the article for years. I don't feel like the block is justified at all, as I really meant no harm with my edits and the situation why I even got blocked in the first place, was a misunderstanding. I summoned you, because you seem to be the one not hostile to discuss it, as the other admin, who has blocked me. Can you at least try to do something, that can take me off the indefinite block? Please. Mirrored7 (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the Ariana Grande article is heavily watched given her celebrity status, so wanting to remove vandalism seems to me to be a pretty weak reason. However, leaving that aside as my review puts an end to my formal involvement here, that is an argument you may make in a new unblock request. Again, merely putting an end date on the block does nothing in terms of you showing us that you understand the reason for the block and won't repeat it. If it needs to be removed, you need to provide sufficient assurance the problems will not repeat. That will be up to the next admin. 331dot (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

Mirrored7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully request to lift my block on the Ariana Grande article. I apologize for my disruptive behavior, caused by impulsive reverts during an editing war. I acknowledge my mistake and commit to following guidelines to prevent future disturbances. I am discussing the issue on TALK:Ariana Grande and seek a chance to show improvement. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2024 (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.

@Widr @331dot Guys, it has been a month now. I try my best to cooperate with others on the Talk: Ariana Grande. However, since I was blocked, my edit requests have been partially ignored, which I find unfair, because that's why I've been criticized for allegedly doing. I don't think my block was justified at all, because the “edit war” wasn't really one, but a simple disagreement. I wanted to have a discussion with the Escape Orbit on the talk page, and I didn't see his replies on my talk page or @Widr's warning. I and Escape Orbit now reached an agreement on the discussion page. Yes, I have been overprotective of the article in recent years due to vandalism, but my changes are really with good intentions. Please, give me another shot. I've been doing it for years and I really care for the article. Mirrored7 (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Can you please lift the block. It's been a month already. I will not disappoint you. Please, take a chance on me. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, you have been doing it for years. Edit warring, that is. If you were unblocked from this one single article, you would most likely go right back to your old habits, and would probably end up getting blocked sitewide. And as can be seen from the recent warnings you have received on your talk page, you have attempted to edit war elsewhere as well. If you really can't see the error in your ways and consider this all just "a simple disagreement", then unblocking you is definitely out of question. Widr (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Widr Thank you for replying! Of course, I have a past, and I had my amounts of edit wars. With "simple disagreement, I mean the issue, why I got blocked in the first place. I really wanted to discuss it with the user in the talk page. I haven't seen neither your last warning or the last replies of the user on my talk page. I know, this will be my last chance and I really will NOT disappoint you. I know, you do barely lift blocks, so I take it very seriously. The next time, I attract negative attention, you can block me entierely and there will be no chance of return. Please. Mirrored7 (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to wait for another admin to review your unblock request, but as said, I will not support it at this point. Since 331dot declined the previous one, they won't review the latest one, so please don't ping them anymore. Widr (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

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).

Mirrored7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been temporarily blocked from the Ariana Grande article for almost three months now. This is now my third Unblock request. The admin declined the second one, as a "procedural decline only". They told me, that I'm welcome to request a new block review, If I reword it. I have done that, and made it longer and more specific, so there is clarity. I wanted to apologize for my recent behavior, which had no negative intentions. A user removed part of the lead that had been there for some time, which I then reverted it, as there have been users in the past who have removed content without giving a constructive reason. Just recently there was an incident that I had to discuss on the talk page because someone removed the occupation "songwriter" from her lead, without any explanation, and I had to ask another user to undo it. This was one of the similar situations, which got me then blocked. I asked the user who removed the content, to clarify it on the talk page. Unfortunately I couldn't reply in time, which is why the user then tried to get in contact with me on my talk page. However, I have seen neither the users replies nor the last warning from the admin, which led to my block in the first place. I enjoy discussions and regularly contribute to talk pages to improve articles and look for results. The problem has now been resolved, and I haven't had any more conflicts since then. I understand why I got blocked and would appreciate it if you would give me another chance, to show my improvements. I mean no harm or disturbance with my contributions as the article is important to me and I have been one of the most active editors on the article, and would like to continue to do so. Furthermore, I now understand the polices and guidelines on Wikipedia better and will use them to avoid any further disturbances in the future. Once again, sorry for any inconveniences. Best regards.

Decline reason:

You've been blocked seven times for edit warring between 2020 and 2024. I don't think that you've demonstrated during your current block, through edits to other articles, that you truly grasp what is considered edit warring and how to avoid it. In your discussion with CoffeeCrumbs below you state "I reverted twice, once because of inaccurate content and twice, because one user decided to undo my edit without giving me any chance to reply on the talk page", which implies that you continue to believe that edit reverting is ok as long as you believe you're right and there is talk page discussion. I'm also concerned by your statement in this appeal that "Just recently there was an incident that I had to discuss on the talk page because someone removed the occupation "songwriter" from her lead, without any explanation, and I had to ask another user to undo it". You are so invested in the Ariana Grande article that I don't think you can differentiate between the way you want the article to appear and the regular editing process, which can result in changes regardless of whether you agree with them or not. Given the continued concerns regarding your understanding of reverting and edit warring, as well as ownership issues, I'm declining this appeal. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:32, 27 August 2024 (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.

As far as I can tell, you've just this week got into a bit of a content dispute over sales figures at Ariana Grande discography in which you reverted twice with a cryptic response and a reference to sales figures having to be year-end to be included -- which I cannot find in either the generalized MOS or the WikiProject Albums one at WP:ALBUMSTYLE -- and when you were asked about it on the talk page, you ghosted them (and now three people are questioning it). Now, you may have a specific album-specific policy reference that I'm unfamiliar with, but if you do, then why are you not resolving a simple question? It seems like this would have been a perfect place to "show your improvements" on a tangentially related page to your topic ban. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user opened the discussion page just TODAY, before I was writing my unblock request and I had a chance to see his comment. I now have replied twice on the talk page, before even seeing your comment. I can't do multiple things at once. Yes, I reverted twice, once because of inaccurate content and twice, because one user decided to undo my edit without giving me any chance to reply on the talk page. Of course, you have to nitpick, when I haven't been in any other "conflict" since I was blocked from the article back in May. Mirrored7 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was started on the 24th, three days ago, and your replies are on the testy side. Nor did you substantiate the foundation for "only add sales in their entirely or when its year-end." You're the one asking to be trusted to return to editing a page that you're blocked from, and requested people review your situation, so you can hardly complain when someone actually looks at how you're editing a tangential topic. Best wishes to you; you may have good fortune with the reviewing admin. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I mixed up the dates and thought that today was the 24th. I haven't been logged in since almost a week and I really aren't lying to you. I just saw the opened discussion page yesterday, before I've made the request. I already explained "adding the numbers in their entirety". I've meant that numbers of the first album are incomplete, because there are weeks missing from the rest of 2020, and the last sales update was in 2021. With for "waiting for year-end", I've meant waiting for other sales figures to come in, so the 6k figure doesn't look that awkward, especially because Grande doesn't come from an era, where albums were selling in the first place, and most of her success comes from streaming only. I really had no idea that it will end up stirring that kind of debate, as I've made the revert, days before the 24th. I saw everything only yesterday, when I logged in, almost more than a week after. Mirrored7 (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]