User talk:Shushu2

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sylvia Brooks, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Sylvia BrooksAs an admirer of this artist- I am concerned that this tag undermines the legitimacy and respectability of this articles subject. In reading this article- it appears to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and is properly sourced. The article is written in a non-bias format, and has a neutral point of view. There does not appear to be a conflict of interest and therefore should be removed. Shushu2 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Sylvia Brooks 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. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editing

Hello Shushu2. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, and that you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to Black hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Shushu2. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Shushu2|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, please do not edit further until you answer this message. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I am disclosing that I am not a paid editor- just a Wikipedia user who follows this artist. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for these, or any edits. As stated, I follow this artist and I am concerned about the damage being done to the reputation of this artist by this tag. The article is "Current: and is complying with Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Please have the editing community review this tag. I believe it should be removed, but will wait to see what the conclusion of the editing community is at large. Thank you.Shushu2 (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2[reply]

Also, just to clarify, I have not made any editing changes to this page. Only removed the tag- as instructed in tag removal, where it said that the tag had to be removed manually. :I am not engaged in any editing war, merely trying to receive a response to my request. Please respond to the above clarification- per your request- I have answered your request. :This page appears to me to be unfairly tagged. Please advise as to next steps for consideration. Shushu2 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2[reply]

Thanks for your reply. There is an odd sudden interest in this page from this account, as well as Salehalharabi and Caramelcorn98. Are you using those two accounts as well? Thanks. 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have no knowledge of these others stated above. I am shushu2- that is the only user name that I havehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shushu2&action=edit#.Shushu2 (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2[reply]

Can you please explain why Restless- the 2nd album from this artist, was removed off of the article page. It is sourced through All Music-which I believe is considered a viable source by Wikipedia. It seems someone has gone in and removed much information. Can you please assist and tell me what is the proper protocol for one to exercise if one believes an edit-removed portion of an article- is incorrect? Thank You for your assistance. Shushu2 (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2[reply]

In following the recommendations for considered edits- as there appears to be an edit war flag on me- I am offering up an edit that was recently made that I believe should be reversed. In 2012, Brooks released her second album, Restless, a collaboration with Kim Richmond. The source for this album can be found on All About Jazz - and All Music- just Google Sylvia Brooks Restless to see the verified sourcing. I own this CD- and in my opinion, it is one of her best, and was on numerous Top 10 lists on Radio. As a fan, I believe that it should be included. Thank you. Shushu2 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)shushu2[reply]

Why have I been blocked? I have no connection with any other editor- please explain. Shushu2 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)shushu4[reply]