User talk:Windowsvista4life

Welcome!

Hello, Windowsvista4life, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Addai II Giwargis did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Knuthove (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia, I am not a vandal: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism.". Furthermore, your attempts at removing the album review disclaimers, that mention the Britney Spears + Justin Timberlake controversy, is very suspicious considering your user profile states that you are a fan of Britney Spears. Additionally, citing "Enough" as your edit change summary is inappropriate for the situation, as it is not a summary, more of a threat, and all I'm doing is restoring relevant accurate information that seem to be your favorite thing to remove. Reporting me to Wikipedia for vandalism is also not a good decision considering we just went over the fact that I am not a vandal. Windowsvista4life (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Including original research, repeatedly, after it being removed, is vandalism. And you labeling everything "unreliable," simply because your addition of a review from a website that was deemed unreliable by Wikipedia shows your edits are not in good faith. Whether I am a fan of someone or not is not relevant here, as I remain neutral when editing pages to adhere to Wikipedia's standard. And, if we're being honest, looking briefly over the reviews in {{Music ratings}} very few mention Spears or the Super Bowl controversy and if they happen to be mentioned, it's not in association with the review of the album itself. It is also worth mentioning, removing a source for not "being an English publication" is also against policy, as other languages exist. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking briefly is not enough. Unless some of the music reviews were replaced with more reliable sources overnight and I haven't noticed it, 4 articles mentioned it, and I had 4 citations to back it up hours ago before the removal occured.

I thought Sputnikmusic was a part of Sputnik. Guess not. The closest source on Wikipedia's trusted citations list was Sputnik itself and it was marked unreliable. La Presse isn't on there either. and I assumed considering the page is written entirely in English it should have English only reviews.

And my reviews are in good faith as I wrote "some of" meaning that not all articles mentioned the controversies. I cited specifically which articles could be deemed untrustworthy as well. Windowsvista4life (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Windowsvista4life! I noticed that you have made edits despite others' objections at Everything I Thought It Was several times. The impulse to continue editing during disagreement is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Everything I Thought It Was, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree. To clarify I don't think I've been involved in an Edit War and certainly haven't and don't plan on breaking the 3RR. This is more of a dispute happening on my talk page.

How did you get here? Were you invited by user livelikemusic or was I reported? Just wondering. Windowsvista4life (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

There was a report at WP:AIV, but it has been – correctly, I'd say – declined as unsuitable for that noticeboard ([1]). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you :) Windowsvista4life (talk) 05:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Windowsvista4life/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Windowsvista4life! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding User:Windowsvista4life/sandbox

Hello, Windowsvista4life. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that User:Windowsvista4life/sandbox, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)