User talk:Shoestringnomad/Archive 1

Archive 1

undisclosed connections to Eric Adams?

Do you have any undisclosed connections to Eric Adams? Some examples are campaign donor, campaign volunteer, campaign employee. Oyveyistmir (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I do not. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Clara Foods, from its old location at User:Shoestringnomad/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Nathan2055! Shoestringnomad (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—PaleoNeonate – 16:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

KYLIE

Yes,it's 97 o the main chart, ut if you look at the singles SALES(!!!!) chart for today you will see it is #1!!!!!!! 90.247.85.176 (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges by mixing the main chart with singles sales. STOP IT. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is notable because it is still a #1! Are you THICK 90.247.85.176 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it's not notable. I said it is misleading and can't be included in a table showing a different chart. Personal attacks are not well received on Wikipedia, so please stop this now. I see you're new to the community. Shoestringnomad (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I appreciate your kind words. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not reinstate the image without a discussion per WP:BRD

KHBritish uploaded the image; they made a change. I reverted said change. That means if they, or you, wish to keep the image in the article, you start a discussion per WP:BRD to gain consensus and explain why you think we should disregard WP:NFCC—Wikipedia has strict rules on non-free media, I suggest you read up about them—to include an image that is not significantly different from the original, just a different colour and with an added picture of Minogue, when the fact that Minogue was credited as a co-lead artist on a remix can very easily be explained in the prose, and we don't need another copyrighted image on the page to explain it. Don't edit war. Thanks. Ss112 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ss112: Moving this to a more suitable location: Talk:Starstruck (Years & Years song). Shoestringnomad (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Do not reinstate the image until a consensus is reached. You are edit warring and disregarding WP:BRD. One user's suggestion and you're ready to revert again. Unbelievable. Next revert from you and an administrator will be informed of your edit warring. I don't know what is so hard for you to grasp about the concept of BRD (have you even read it?) or let go about this, but you need to move on and find more worthwhile pursuits. Oh, and for the record, I absolutely didn't "scrub" my comments because I thought they were too "harsh". I don't regret what I wrote to you. I just reworded it. Ss112 06:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Your recent editing history at Starstruck (Years & Years song) 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. Ss112 06:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Lil-unique1 suggested to "Reinstate the cover the[n] nominate for deletion." The editor ix experienced, and I thought his suggestion was a good one. I didn't replace the image to engage in an edit war as you suggest. That said, this is not a hill I'm prepared to die on, so do as you please, without consensus. Shoestringnomad (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I know what Lil-unique1 suggested, and I appreciate his input as I pinged him to the discussion. I don't agree we should act on every suggestion made. Regarding your "without consensus" remark, per BRD, a user does not need consensus to revert a bold edit another user made to an article. The reverted user (or a third party) who wishes to reinstate that edit should begin a discussion (as you have done) and then achieve consensus. That's the way it works. Ss112 07:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Like I said. Without consensus. Shoestringnomad (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)