User talk:PHShanghai/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, PHShanghai, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Sims 4 new rebrand 2019.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Sims 4 new rebrand 2019.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Shangela performing at her 2013 comedy special.jpeg

A tag has been placed on File:Shangela performing at her 2013 comedy special.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 "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 deleted 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. Armadillopteryx 07:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of edit summaries

Hello, I'm Doggy54321. I noticed that you recently made an edit in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please try to be neutral on Wikipedia, and please don’t say "Stan Nicki" or "Stream Smile" etc in your edit summaries as they do not accurately describe your changes. Thank you! D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

On vacation in Bulacan right now and connected to a family friend's WiFi- wanted to do some editing on the Lady Gaga article and noticed that I had been autoblocked. Checked the block list, and a year ago this IP was banned for vandalism I guess :b

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This account is not directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Paywalled sources

Per WP:Paywall, it's perfectly fine to use sources behind a paywall. However, and I'll repeat something I said at ANI; please make sure you've actually checked out the source you are citing. Please don't rely on a search engine snippet or something of that sort since you may have missed some important context or clarification. If you are doing that, you need to stop straight away. If you don't have access to the source, you can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request for help. (For books and very long sources, you don't generally need the whole book. One or a few pages will normally be enough. But you should never rely on a snippet from a search engine or similar since it's impossible know from that if there is important information you can't see.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:I did actually technically get to check the source, Firefox has a "reading mode" that allowed me to bypass the paywall, however I'm not sure if that falls under content piracy or not. But yes I did check and Taylor has about the same amount of Hot 100 entries as Nicki with a slight difference. You get my point, but I was able to check it for accuracy. Redandvidya (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Provided you did access the source and are not trying send it to others here, how you accessed it is not really our concern. As I said, if you need help accessing sources, feel free to ask at WP:REX Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Trivial material

While there's nothing wrong with using the talk page to ask for help finding sources [1], do note what I told you before. There's a fair chance that trivial stuff like that is simply not covered in reliable secondary sources. Also note that even if you can find sources, once you're looking at very minor records like that there's a fair chance it's simply to trivial to mention no matter if there are sources. The point I'm trying to get across is that one of the problems of editing when you're a fairly strong fan of the subject is that you may feel every single minor achievement or record or whatever that you think is positive needs to be in the article. It doesn't. The same risk applies to those who are strongly opposed to subjects but in the opposite direction. If you're going to keep editing, you need to recognise this bias and deal with it properly. (You've suggested you are dealing with it, however I'm not sure you've managed as well as you think you have from what I've seen.) Whether the editor you're complaining about is doing this, it's IMO not worth discussing any more unless you have far better evidence. Even if you did, I'd suggest you wait a few weeks or longer before opening a new thread. Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Okay then. Will try to avoid adding trivial stuff to the main article in the future, However as it is right now, I think the article is in a good state. All mentions of Minaj's record-breaking achievements are properly sourced from reliable sources, well written, and agreed to be relevant by many editors, not just me. Which is why if user:cornerstonepicker undos those edits, or removes them and ""reworks"" them, I highly doubt that they as an editor will continue to be neutral. As mentioned by another user, Cornerstonepicker was warned for sudden content removal on his other IP So the idea of his compromised neutrality and unsure motive does have some ground. May not be enough to instate a block, but it's not just booted in fiction. Also, I am working to understand Wikipedia policy more and get more reliable sources. That is what I meant about becoming a better editor. Redandvidya (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Hey bestie, so I added a new section in Nicki Minaj and moved a lot of the information from the lead into the new "Achievements" section - I noticed nearly every artist (including Ariana Grande, Mariah Carey, Cardi B, etc.) has this section but Nicki has not. Three guesses about who has stopped it from appearing. Feel free to add more sourced information as well. Kind regards Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 01:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Maxwell King123321: Huh. Interesting. As Minaj once said in a popular Stan Twitter reaction meme: Much to think about. Anyways, I will be promptly updating the Minaj article to fit the adding of this new secrion. Thank you bestie! Redandvidya (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

do you like Cardi more than Nicki ? or the other way around Lamiez Holworthy (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Lil Nas X edit

Hello, I've undone your good-faith edit to Lil Nas X.

From what I'm reading in the citations, the tweets from an old account "may" only link back to him ("Lil Nas X’s media team reached out to them and denied that the account belonged to him"). Considering your addition could be perceived as slanderous, and there's a high bar to what can be included in articles about living people (WP:BLP), I've removed it. Even if it were linked to him, there's not enough media attention or coverage to consider it notable enough to be included.

Separately, sections titled "Controversies" should be avoided since it harms the neutrality of the article, which you can read about on WP:CRITS; instead, it should be integrated into the "Public image" section.

If you have any questions about this you can reply to me here (type {{reply to|uses x}} so I get a message about your reply ), or you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uses x: Is there anything that I can tweak in what I wrote to fit Wikipedia's guidelines?? Also, he literally confirmed that he is nasmaraj at least in late 2020. He did it during a video with James Charles, who said "oh I just wanna distance myself from the account" which literally implies that he was the owner. Also, while talking about being gay on Twitter, he said "people will assume you're gay if you run a Nicki Minaj stan account" which is even more confirmation from him directly that he is Nas Maraj. There is plenty of media attention about his past islamophobia, I just picked the most prominent articles from the best sources. The entire point of it was that Nas X's media team denied that he was nasmaraj because of the homophobia again mentioned in the article. And isn't stuff about NasMaraj at all already in the article? It isn't a bad idea to include stuff about the alleged islamophobia as well. I will probably be adding it to Public Image and not making a new section called controversies however. Redandvidya (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Redandvidya Hello, I'm much happier with that addition because it makes it clear it's only alleged, but I'm still not convinced there's enough proof to put it on a biography of a living person.

The Uproxx page says "it’s hard to discern if the screenshot has validity", while Wikipedia is only for confirmed, encyclopedic information (WP:CRYSTAL). Not only that, but the tweet with the image was deleted and there's no archive of it. The fact that he didn't respond to the accusation isn't an indication of guilt, either. If it had more media attention it'd redeem it somewhat in my view, but looking up the story myself I can only find five news articles about it, all from tabloids (WP:NOTGOSSIP) Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Stan Twitter—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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@CommanderWaterford: Uhhhhhh okay, that was quick! I'm surprised that you're not a bot as I got the message seconds after I finished editing. I don't really get what's not "constructive" about my edit, they are simply terms that I've seen commonly used on Stan Twitter and wanted to add. Chile being AAVE should definitely be in there, as that is common knowledge around here. I am just adding stuff that I think is useful as a member of the Barbz on Stan Twitter. What else can I do? Ty Redandvidya (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Hey red !👨‍🦱✌️I'm glad I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that ,that editor is biased and has a personal vendetta with Mrs petty (I mean if you don't like then don't edit) he always removes stuff .can someone try to reason with him (when I say someone I mean😉) btw you sound like a very nice guy😎 saw your user page Yikes2004 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey!

You may be interested in joining WP:WikiProject Women in hip hop music, since I've seen you a lot around Nicki Minaj related articles. versacespaceleave a message! 14:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj

Your editing around Nicki Minaj's bio is getting problematic:

• The image you uploaded does not meet Wikipedia's non-free use criteria. You can't claim that it's impossible to obtain a free image of her when a free image of her exists on Commons. You generally can't make this claim for a living person at all because it's possible for someone to take a picture of the person and release it under a free license.
• You seem to be edit warring over the image. Edit-warring to add a copyright infringement to Wikipedia is a major problem.
• Calling another editor "weird" is a personal attack. Comment on the actions, not on the person making the actions. Guettarda (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: But the current photo, the 2018 VMAs MTV International performance, is already falling under the non-free video screenshot criteria. It says so in the description. How come only now when I upload a more RECENT image of her, you want to take it down when again there is already a widely used image of Minaj that falls under non-free video screenshot copyright tag? I never claimed that it was impossible to obtain a free image of her, I am uploading this one because it is recent and accurately depicts her. The current choices of images are 3-5 years old, which while fine, can be improved by uploading an image of her that falls under criteria. I have consulted other editors from the Minaj article on this photo, namely @Maxwell King123321: who said that it does fall under the criteria of a non free screenshot.

The only reason I even called him weird and "edit warred" over the image was because he was not providing any REASON for reverting the image. At all. It was literally just blank, and of course that is confusing behavior when an editor doesn't even explain why they changed the image. I am promptly going to hold my position about this recent image.Redandvidya (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here's what you're missing regarding fair use: the other screenshot is not hosted here at all, it is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, which does not allow fair-use images at all. The screenshot is taken from a YouTube video uploaded by MTV Europe that was released under a free license. This information, and a record of it being verified by a trusted Commons user is all on it's description page at Commons. The file you uploaded doesn't have any of that, which is why it is going to be deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Fine, but you guys were extremely unwelcoming about it. I had already consulted with multiple editors on the Minaj article, multiple times, on the possibility of uploading a more recent image of Minaj and another editor suggested the non free video screenshot license. But when I uploaded it, no one was being helpful and everything was SUPER unclear, plus with people randomly reverting the image while giving NO edit reason for doing it whatsoever? I researched the copyright TOU for Instagram and it says "We do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a license to use it." (ref) So it's not even clear who would claim this image. If anything else, just don't give off such bad vibes to someone who is already confused and unsure about what rules are there for this situation. Jesus. Redandvidya (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You've not exactly been pleasant in your own remarks. Falsely accusing others of vandalism, repeatedly insinuating other users are not even real people, and so on. All I have done is explain to you why the other image is not the same as the one you uploaded. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I asked him multiple times why he was reverting the image. No response. He doesn't even have a user page. It's literally just blank. Piece the puzzle together.Redandvidya (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

"He doesn't even have a user page" is not a valid criticism. I also do not see you asking multiple times why you were being reverted. Edit summaries are not a discussion. I also can't imagine why you accused them of being a "spambot". [2] Where is the spam and in what way are they acting like a bot? It's utter nonsense. If you can't calm down and rein in your attitude,you're just going to get blocked again. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guettarda (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Despite having the problem explained, you have continued to edit war to add copyright-infringing content to Wikipedia. This sort of behaviour is unacceptable - it puts the entire foundation of the project at risk. And edit warring to do this shows a lack of regard for others in this community. Guettarda (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)'

@Guettarda: Didn't I just make the point that there was no explanation for the problem at all? "Wikipedia has rules about photos" and "No edit summary" are not thorough explanations of what SPECIFIC criteria I violated, especially as a newbie photo uploader. The only thing I have to say is that, in my point of view, you have shown nothing but hostility towards me so far, especially since I am new to specific parts of Wikipedia, such as photo uploading. There isn't even any clear consensus on social media video screenshots, not that I could find, as per Instagram TOU it literally says We do not claim ownership of your content, but you grant us a license to use it. (ref). Please don't confuse new users to the point of irritation. Thank you. Redandvidya (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I explained the problem in a previous section here:

The image you uploaded does not meet Wikipedia's non-free use criteria. You can't claim that it's impossible to obtain a free image of her when a free image of her exists on Commons. You generally can't make this claim for a living person at all because it's possible for someone to take a picture of the person and release it under a free license.

There's little ambiguity on copyright - it belongs to the creator of the work (unless it's a work for hire, in which case it belongs to the person or entity doing the hiring). The Instagram Live video belongs to the person shooting the video unless that person has explicitly signed their rights over to another. So it's safe to assume the video either belongs to Nicki or to her management company. But that's beside the point - it's clear that the copyright does not belong to you.

But the real problem here isn't getting copyright wrong - it's complicated, and we all make mistakes. You were edit warring to reinsert the content, which is a problem. You were engaging in personal attacks against another person, which is a problem. And most importantly, when I informed you what the problem was with your NFCC claim, you continued to edit war.

No one expects new editors to get everything right. No one expects editors with 16+ years experience to get everything right. But we do expect that when someone tells you that you've made a mistake, you stop and listen. You discuss. You don't assume your right and try to force your way through. There's an awful lot of freedom to do things the way you want when it comes to improving this encyclopaedia, but there are also a few rules and expectations that aren't negotiable. This is a collaborative project, and you need to be able to work with others. Guettarda (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: it does not seem your advice was taken to heart. I have the Chelsea Manning page on my list, and noted this user uploaded a new photo. Upon inspection, they copied it from Manning's twitter feed and uploaded it to Commons, which surely won't stand for long. Looks like the similar actions for a few other articles as well. ValarianB (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: It looks fine. The link is to Chelsea Manning's verified Twitter account, and it's tagged as CC by SA. Looks like they're doing it right. Guettarda (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Guettarda: So why was my Chelsea Manning image deleted by a moderator then, when it's stated that the image was CC by SA? 0.o Doesn't this literally prove my point about the thing being confusing?

I don't know. You'd have to ask on Commons. It might have been a mistake, it might have been some issue I missed. You should ping User:Elcobbola over there and ask. Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Soooooo..... What is the evidence that File:Nicki Minaj Realize 2017 NBA Awards Tour.png is released under a free license? I'm not seeing it andhave nominated it for speedy deletion at Commons as a copyright violation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: It was literally released under a free license, I made 100% sure of this. If you click on "More" on the vimeo link you'll see that it was released under an CC 3.0 attribution license... it's literally a free license image!! A lot of Minaj images have been uploaded this way, including her MTV Awards ones. This is a free image which deserves to be on this article. Redandvidya (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what is "deserved" or not, just a licensing question. I asked, you answered, I see it now and have removed the deletion nom. I'm not out to get you, nobody is, I just don't know how things work in Vimeo as I don't use it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I still stand by removal. The Twitter link in question is this one. Manning posted 2 pics, and in a thread that saw 400+ comments, posted a "photo is CC 4.0 BY-SA taken by me" down a bit in a later comment. Pic 2 (the one with glasses) certainly looks like a selfie, so IMO it applies to that one, not the first one which does not look self-taken. We're opening a can of worms here if all we're going to rely on is imprecise licensing via tweet. ValarianB (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@ValarianB: If you can't look at little details like that and be sure that what you're doing is the right thing, then maybe take some time off. Food for thought.Redandvidya (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pose (TV series). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KyleJoan^talk 09:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: I have been trying to reach a consensus with you on the talk page, but you have not replied so far and am now accusing me of edit warring. Please reply to my messageso n the talk page before accusing me of edit warring. RogueShanghai (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 10:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

signature test

klashdfjkas [[User:RogueShanghai|<span style="color: DeepPink">"Pop pills now we Shanghai!"</span>]] [[User talk:RogueShanghai|<span style="color: DeepPink">talk</span>]] (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Your recent editing history at Katya Zamolodchikova shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please respect WP:BRD and take your issue to the talk page. Also, please be clear in your edit summaries about changes you make, which included a manual revert in your most recent edit. Shoestringnomad (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Pointers

Hi RogueShanghai! I saw a thread about you at ANI and while I don't support any action being taken against you, I wanted to give you some pointers. Your most edited page by far is Nicki Minaj. Having an interest in the topic of this rapper is good and can help contribute to the encyclopedia. However, this interest has resulted in well-recorded moments of bias (as rightfully pointed out by KyleJoan), edit wars, and many other problematic things. There are more positive ways for you to go about editing. A look through your statistics shows that you don't seem to edit articles about Nicki's songs, albums, fragrances, etc nearly as often, with your most edited one being "The Pinkprint" with just 9 edits. Your editing skills are arguably more needed at these topics. For instance, an article does not exist at "Seeing Green" or "LLC", despite the two songs being probably notable enough to receive articles. Additionally, you can try at the good article process, and I'm sure you'd love to see one of those green plus signs at the top of your favorite Nicki Minaj-related articles (I love Doja Cat, and I went through the good article process for the article Hot Pink. See the green plus sign on that article). If that's not your thing, you can also fix Nicki Minaj-related articles that have issues. There are a ton of them and if you need I can give you a list of them. There's a ton of things you can do. I can help you with anything you need, so don't fret to contact me if you need help. versacespaceleave a message! 02:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Lowkey though, honestly the reason why the main Nicki article is my most edited page because there seems to be a suuuper biased unconstructive editor in bad faith looking to remove Nicki's achievements and legacy. If that editor wasn't in such bad faith or actually looking to collaborate and create consensus for the information in the article, then maybe I can center my attention on other Nicki pages. I don't really care if people know that I'm a fan of Minaj, because if they haven't done something against the biased guy who hates Nicki, what tf they gon do to me?

I do try to edit other Nicki related articles, but honestly most of them are fine enough that I just need to do small edits, whereas compared to the main Minaj article where I have a better compendium of knowledge on the subject. I'm not really well versed in article creation, so that is something I have to study on. However, the list of Minaj related articles that need fixes seems like a great idea, please link me the list so I can use my spare time editing them and fixing them. Thank you! "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 09:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I think the best way to go about this is to check their edit summaries. If they do not leave an edit summary, you may revert their edits as "unexplained removal of content". If they do leave an edit summary, go from there. Discuss with the other party and if they are unwilling to discuss ping an uninvolved administrator or ask for help at the teahouse. Being civil will also probably result in a better turn-out for you. If you want to create an article, I can help you with that as well. I've also created the page User:VersaceSpace/Nicki Minaj related articles with problems. versacespaceleave a message! 16:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Pose

Hi there RogueShanghai! The RfC about your proposed footnotes ends in two days, and it seems we've obtained a consensus to exclude them. Upon its conclusion, would you like to remove them yourself or do you want me to do it? Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 02:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: Since a conclusion was reached, I'll promptly follow. Hopefully you'll stop having apparent big WP:OWN issues, acting rude and malicious to other editors proposing changes for seemingly no reason, [3] [4], [5] stalking other people's edit histories [6] to get them blocked because you seemingly don't like potential changes to an article suggested by other editors, and acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s. Young Money! 😘 "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 22:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Hello, RogueShanghai. I want to elaborate on this:

• I'm not removing the nickname, I'm placing it in the third paragraph because "by several media outlets" fails WP:GLOBAL; it is not a global point of view. Articles like Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga do not even have honorific nicknames in their intro because of that: Those not a Michael Jackson / Madonna cases.
• List of best-selling music artists has a column called "Claimed sales", which number you can see in most lead sections. This list has rules. And Wikipedia articles can't contradict each other. All other articles of artists respect this list. Minaj has 100 million records estimated in that list.
• Then, why not the claimed sales in the opening sentence?: No artist have claimed sales in their introduction, check Rihanna, Kanye West.

The lead section should read like a neutral introduction, not as a fan-written text of WP:PEACOCK. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Your recent editing history at Nicky Minaj shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong name. Also, Minaj IS referred to as an actress in this Britannica source.

@RogueShanghai: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Stop changing the lead section away from its consensus version. Binksternet (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

?? Why are you replying on an old discussion from three weeks ago? I haven't been adding ANY disputed content, just improvements to the lead to make it read more like a featured article, such as Lady Gaga and Katy Perry. For example, information about the number of accolades, which seems to be consensus for multiple if not all articles about artists, but since a certain editor keeps removing them, I'm inclined to believe we're supposed to treat Minaj differently? The first main RfC was started was about disputing the title of the "Queen of Hip-Hop", it wasn't about adding details about *what* her third album is about OR saying how many accolades she has won (which again, seems to be consensus for a lot of featured articles). If any of the changes I had done were disputed on the talk page, I'd agree, but NONE of my said changes have been disputed upon by anyone on the talk page. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 12:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You keep promoting Minaj with puffery, for instance your decision to list the not-very-important Billboard Game Changer Award which you said was for "redefining success for women in hip-hop of the 2010s", whatever that means. (As far as I can tell, Minaj succeeded the normal way, by selling a lot of music.) Myself and others are tired of seeing this kind of constant push from you. Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

How is an award given by Billboard not important? My edit says: " In 2019, Billboard awarded Minaj with the Game Changer Award for redefining success for women in hip-hop of the 2010s.", a direct quote from Billboard itself. If I had written it like "In 2019, Billboard awarded the then critically acclaimed Minaj with the amazing game changer award as she is the best female rapper ever!" then I'd understand it as puffery, but noting that Billboard gave her this Woman in Music award is not puffery. And also, your removing of specifically what and how many accolades Minaj has won is problematic, since this is article consensus for a lot of articles on musicians: See the featured articles Katy Perry and Lady Gaga for example. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 14:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Mars Argo in Febuary 2019.png

Thanks for uploading File:Mars Argo in Febuary 2019.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not sufficient that a free image currently does not exist, it also must be the case that one cannot be created. See WP:NFC#UUI#1. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Sheets as a person has essentially disappeared from public view. No concerts, no shows, no new images, it isn't a case where I can hypothetically buy tickets to her concert, since no such concert exists and will not exist for the forseeable future. That's kind of the issue, in my own opinion. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 18:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)