User talk:Musicstarboy007
What you did on "Balans" is poppycock. Your version is short, full of poor grammar and unsourced. The article was promoted to GA (Good Article) status, which means that it is of a good quality in concordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, as checked by another users. As an experienced editor with almost 60 GAs in music, I advise you to stop reverting things on "Balans". If you keep doing that, I may report you. Btw, my name is "Cartoon network freak" and not "Cartoon man". Best or regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder how much energy you have to keep reverting the GA version of "Balans" to your bad and childish alleged "better" version. I have reported you, and you will receive your consequences of being so rude, especially on talk pages. Best of regards and merry christmas ;) Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. !dave 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Balans (song) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Balans (song) was changed by Musicstarboy007 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.852978 on 2017-12-25T11:35:51+00:00 .
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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:Musicstarboy007 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: ). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 11:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
December 2017
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. only (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)- As you can see can see in this discussion (snapshot of the discussion as of today, in case it gets archived), Wikipedia editors are having trouble understanding what you're alleging and why you're removing content in Balans (song). If you could stop edit warring and post an explanation on Talk:Balans (song), this would help your case substantially. Once other editors understand your concerns, we can hopefully find a solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll just add a few thoughts to try to help. It seems to me that you're claiming the 2016 release of the song was problematic in that it was "unofficial" or a copyright violation, or something like that, and that the new 2017 release is the first and only "official" release. Is that what you mean? The problem is, Wikipedia needs reliable sources for content included in Wikipedia articles, and no reliable sources presented so far make any claims to support your apparent assertions. And there is plenty of evidence that the 2016 release was an official one. For example, we have:
- Released on iTunes, March 2016
- Released on YouTube on her official channel, March 2016
- Listed on her official web site, March 2016
If there genuinely is an official/copyright dispute here, we'd need to see some independent Reliable sources covering it, not just your personal claims about it - and none of the links you provided in your version said anything about any dispute. Also, even if there is evidence, the Wikipedia would be expanded to cover and explain the dispute and the various releases, not just remove all mention of the past. Do you understand why changing the article based solely on your personal claims and without any supporting sources is problematic? Your block is only short, and when it expires you really should follow NinjaRobotPirate's advice above and start a discussion on the article talk page. If you go back to edit warring on the article, I can pretty much guarantee you will be quickly blocked again, for substantially longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)