User talk:Joseph Prasad/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Joseph Prasad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Echosmith
The indie pop genre. It might be sourced, but genre additions are always contentious. I personally don't have anything against additions of genres, but I suspect others will. Ss112 07:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, @Ss112:, but people have been trying to remove rock as a genre. And We've come to a consensus on the genres Rock and Indie-pop. I will revert it, if they are removed, and tell them to discuss on talk page if needed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year Joseph Prasad!
Joseph Prasad,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Francesca Battistelli
- It's the wrong template. The correct template is {{BLP sources}}
- Every section has references except the awards section so I'm not sure what needs additional references. Tagging a specific sentence with a {{[[Template:citation
needed|citation needed]]}} template or a section by using {{BLP sources|section|date=December 2014}}. The template is not valid and if you don't remove it and apply something more appropriate I will remove it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drake Bell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Collins. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 15:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Traynor discography
What I saw was blanking of content and an edit summary that said, "(I hate that person!)". Thought it was vandalism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC) @Winkelvi: It's fine, I understand. But if you look through the history, that user was editing that article for a while before it was deleted along with Meghan Trainor. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Pink (singer)
Hi, I thought you should know that your edits here and here on Pink (singer), have been reverted by what appears to be the same IP hopper here.
I have tried to engage in a discussion on the talk page to resolve the matter. However, after leaving one comment he/she is refusing to reply to the points I have raised on the matter and is just repeatedly reverting the edit. I was wondering if you would also leave your comments on the issue there, thanks. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, I didn't actually get your ping because you left out the "d" in my username, so I have only read this now. I am really sorry to hear that, I have taken a look at the AN, I don't know the full picture but it does appear to be a bit harsh. I personally avoid reverting another editors edits more than once and if my edits are then subsequently reverted I just refer the matter to an admin and that usually tends to resolve the matter.
- I have seen many good faith editors leave due to this sort of thing before. It's a shame you are leaving on account of this, I know it can be frustrating which leads to it no longer being enjoyable, but maybe you should consider just taking a wikibreak instead. Take care whatever you decide to do. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Drake Bell
The new event is fine with me. Not sure if someone else will revert it or not. With your previous entry, it looked like an event based on Drake Bell whereas the new one is more towards the revival of rockabilly, which makes it far more notable. Thanks for the edit! Contactman7 (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The Beatles Invite
|
Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. | ||||||
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!
| |||||||
January 2015
Your recent editing history at Meghan Trainor 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. livelikemusic my talk page! 04:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic:, I only reverted twice. Not three times. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Meghan Trainor. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! - Lips are movin 10:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC) (Edited by Guy Macon (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC))
- @Lips Are Movin: OK, I'll be glad to participate, but I have to get some sleep and will help tomorrow. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Rihanna, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.If you feel that something is not correct, YOU take it to the talk page. Until then, nothing gets changed. — ₳aron 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rihanna 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 12:55, 12 January 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joseph_Prasad reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: ). Thank you. — ₳aron 13:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- It looks to me that you broke 3RR at Rihanna. Please see a suggestion I left for you in the complaint. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you let me know whether you will be accepting my offer? EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Oh, sorry. Wasn't actually paying attention to messages. It's not even on my Watchlist anymore, so I won't be editing the article any longer anyway. Not being a big fan of Rihanna, I've decided to drop the article from my Watchlist. -- 02:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you let me know whether you will be accepting my offer? EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I am the WP:DRN Volunteer who will be attempting to mediate the case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Meghan Trainor. I noticed that in your Summary of dispute you wrote something that violates our ground rules (we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Do not talk about other editors.). Specifically, you wrote "A couple of the editors feel to have a personal connection to the subject in question, one user having a username of a title of one of Trainor's songs". Please edit your statement so that it no longer talks about other users. Thanks!
It is OK to mention in passing that there was an edit war or a heated discussion, but please avoid naming anyone or making user behavior a topic of discussion. If someone else talks about other users, do not respond in any way. Ignore the comment and let me deal with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Style
Look man, I don't know what to tell you. Republic Records handles Taylor's pop radio releases and always has. Google Taylor Swift Republic Records. They're a partner of Big Machine and the Republic website even links to Big Machine. The Republic website was also the first place to report the Blank Space release date. Stop reverting a cited and legit edit or you'll probably be banned for edit warring. Afireinside27 (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Afireinside27:, You are edit warring as well, which would also get you blocked. Find more than one site that does not look that reliable. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It's their official site. Whether or not it looks "reliable" to you is irrelevant. Afireinside27 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joseph_Prasad reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: ). Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring at 1989 (Taylor Swift album)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The full report is at WP:AN3#User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
To SNUGGUMS
@SNUGGUMS:, I'd like you to know I appreciate you and your edits to Wikipedia, but it is time for me to say farewell. I have been blocked for edit warring, even though others do it as well, I'm always the ONLY one who gets reported. I feel like I'm being targeted and singled out, all the time. I have been the only main person on the Drake Bell and Drake Bell discography articles. If you could keep up with it like you do other articles, that would be great. If you can't, no biggie. I think I am done with Wikipedia and will probably request a deletion of my account after I am unblocked. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- You've addressed this to Snuggums, but I also saw it because have your talk page on my watchlist. If you don' mind, I would like to comment.
- I hope you don't leave. I know how you feel about being targeted and singled out. But you simply can't let people like that get in the way of your editing and contributions here. The block is short, take that time to forget about what happened, and come back with a new resolve to not let those who have been targeting you take your enjoyment in editing away. They aren't worth it. Do everything you can to avoid them in the future. There are many, many more articles in Wikipedia to edit. Hang in there and do come back after your block. The 'pedia needs good editors like you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, @Winkelvi:, and the block wouldn't bother me, I'd feel better if I wasn't the only one. But maybe I'll just take a break, I'm in a bad mood now, and kinda was already upset and depressed with life at the moment, and strangely, editing helps. I might just start vandalizing pages just because of it once I am unblocked. I don't want to do that.
- And the only reason I addressed that editor is because it's the one I most interact with. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, whatever you decide, don't vandalize articles. Ever. Edit them instead. Okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Winkelvi said it all, Joseph. Don't feel discouraged about what has recently happened, and certainly don't vandalize pages! You aren't the only person who's been in this situation. If you get frustrated over certain pages, simply edit other things or take a temporary break from editing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, SNUGGUMS, I might take a break, but it's hard to since it's the only thing I have to do when I get home from school. And at school during my free time. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Happy to help Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, SNUGGUMS, I might take a break, but it's hard to since it's the only thing I have to do when I get home from school. And at school during my free time. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Winkelvi said it all, Joseph. Don't feel discouraged about what has recently happened, and certainly don't vandalize pages! You aren't the only person who's been in this situation. If you get frustrated over certain pages, simply edit other things or take a temporary break from editing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, whatever you decide, don't vandalize articles. Ever. Edit them instead. Okay? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
You get reported because you're being antagonistic, and you're the only one who starts changing things without just cause or discussion. You yourself was not blocked for your first offences, you was let off with warnings; so it's not very fair of you to effectively be asking that the other user who also edit warred on 1989 be blocked too, because you wasn't for warring on Rihanna. If you disagree with something, you do not keep reverting in hope that no one will revert you and give up. You take it to the talk page. If you had of done that on Rihanna and 1989 then you would have without doubt avoided all of this and you would not be blocked right now. I think it shows that you are only 15, I don't think you are mature enough yet to be editing Wikipedia and making the right editorial decisions. You need to work with other editors on here, not against them. If you try and talk with editors first about something, it will get resolved a lot faster and certainly a lot easier. — ₳aron 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I may be only 15, 16 in March, @Calvin999: but I have been on here quite a while, since May, and will improve since honestly, I have nothing else to do with my life. And you are 22, not that far off considering I have a brother who is 20. I found something to do. And there are a couple articles I'm single-handedly improving, with other editors making minor edits to those pages. And I had stuff to add. Now I can't do that for a while. And actually, it is not like you follow every article I edit on, other discussions/arguments I were a part of where other editors edit warred, I'm always the only one ever reported. Always. And that is why I'm on the noticeboard a lot. Otherwise, there would be others on there. They act the same way I act, yet I am the only one reported. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- 6 months isn't a very long time. I was about 18/19 when I really got in to this too, and my first few months didn't run smoothly either. It takes a long time to learn all of the rules, and even now after 27,000 thousand edits and all the articles I've worked on that have been promoted, I still have to look at rules sometimes. I didn't really have anything to do with my time either, so I understand what you are saying. But I'm just giving you the advice that from this moment on, make use of the talk page. If you don't revert, you will not have any chance of being reported by any one. There was a period of time where I had been blocked, and I got placed on a 6 month one revert only system. Forget what has happened with others, and learn from what's happened. Make use of talk pages, raise concerns there and talk it out first. If you are unhappy, then find an admin or another editor to try and resolve things further and help you. Reverting multiple times will only draw attention to yourself, more so now that you have crossed the 3RR twice in two days. The block will be over in 18 hours, and then you can edit again. Start with a fresh slate and try to work with others, not against. Believe it or not, reverting someone can be perceived very negatively by the person you are reverting. Everything I'm saying to you was said to me 4 years ago. If you need help with things, you can leave a message on my talk page and I'll try and help you out with whatever it is. But I would not use the revert button for a while from this day on. Maybe give it one or two months. Editors like it when they see someone is trying to change and improve the way they edit. — ₳aron 10:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm one of people who constantly see vandalism, and I'm pretty sure I have to revert then. And 6 months, if you think is not a log time, is all I do besides School. So if I am not on school, I am on here. Only Two thing I do. And I even do it at school during lunch. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Someone else will see it too, or notify an editor. I'm just saying if I was you, I should avoid the revert button for a little while, unless perhaps it is mass removal of content, blanking of an article or an editor/IP replacing content with something offensive. I'm just offering you advice. It's up to you if you use it or not. — ₳aron 10:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm one of people who constantly see vandalism, and I'm pretty sure I have to revert then. And 6 months, if you think is not a log time, is all I do besides School. So if I am not on school, I am on here. Only Two thing I do. And I even do it at school during lunch. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- 6 months isn't a very long time. I was about 18/19 when I really got in to this too, and my first few months didn't run smoothly either. It takes a long time to learn all of the rules, and even now after 27,000 thousand edits and all the articles I've worked on that have been promoted, I still have to look at rules sometimes. I didn't really have anything to do with my time either, so I understand what you are saying. But I'm just giving you the advice that from this moment on, make use of the talk page. If you don't revert, you will not have any chance of being reported by any one. There was a period of time where I had been blocked, and I got placed on a 6 month one revert only system. Forget what has happened with others, and learn from what's happened. Make use of talk pages, raise concerns there and talk it out first. If you are unhappy, then find an admin or another editor to try and resolve things further and help you. Reverting multiple times will only draw attention to yourself, more so now that you have crossed the 3RR twice in two days. The block will be over in 18 hours, and then you can edit again. Start with a fresh slate and try to work with others, not against. Believe it or not, reverting someone can be perceived very negatively by the person you are reverting. Everything I'm saying to you was said to me 4 years ago. If you need help with things, you can leave a message on my talk page and I'll try and help you out with whatever it is. But I would not use the revert button for a while from this day on. Maybe give it one or two months. Editors like it when they see someone is trying to change and improve the way they edit. — ₳aron 10:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Hilary Duff does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: I know about the edit summaries, I forgot that time, sorry.
MaranoFan SPI
Please try to add your comments without deleting half the page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: Wait, what? Not entirely sure what you're talking about. I don't remember deleting half the page. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why Viriditas was so harsh here. You're still a new editor and likely to make mistakes here and there. Sometimes you accidentally edit an old version of a page and it deletes any other edits made after that version and before yours. So it's likely that's what happened. No big deal, just check the diffs sometimes after you make an edit and make sure only what you intended to change is what was edited. Gloss 05:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- BTW, it's here. --NeilN talk to me 05:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Mistakes happen, Joseph. Don't worry about it and take Gloss' comments as a good suggestion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Ian Somerhalder
Hi, Joseph. Just wanted to note that my edit summary wasn't directed at you — I can see you simply reverted only the first of the two non-constructive edits. I got the previous one. I probably should have written "To Topaz597" in my summary. My apologies for any confusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)