Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:27, 4 July 2012

User talk:Status/Header

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #52

Welcome to my talk page!

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Status}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

If you leave a message here I will most likely reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. If I left you a message on your talk page and if you have not received a response within 24 hours, I most likely forgot about the message and will be in need of a reminder.

DYK for Run the World (song)

On 1 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Run the World (song), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Rick Ross was to be featured on Jennifer Lopez's song "Run the World", but his rap was removed from the song shortly before its commercial release? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Run the World (song). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Cowboys Are Frequently, Secretly Fond of Each Other/GA2

Status, it looks like while you say the article has been passed on the Review page and list it in your group of completed reviews on the backlog elimination drive page, you haven't actually closed out the review as a pass. The article's talk page hasn't been changed to indicate that the review is completed, so it still shows up on the GAN page. Can you please finish this with the usual "i"-dotting and "t"-crossing? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I can't believe I forgot to change the talk page! Thank you for letting me know! Statυs (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Does Anybody Hear Her GA

Issues are corrected. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Bieber on Twitter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Bieber on Twitter is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Informing you of this nomination because of your previous participation in the Justin Bieber on Twitter merge into Justin Bieber discussion.--LauraHale (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Lots of people have contributed to the article to improve it. I'm personally confused as to how the topic is not notable given the over 150 sources in the article. I'm also boggled by WP:SYNTH. If we demanded 150+ sources in an article where Google News searches brought up 3000+ results and 175 sources on newsbank with Bieber + Twitter in the title, several books that mention the topic, and some academic works on it, we'd be in some trouble. As for SYNTH, lots of articles would suffer that including Barack Obama and Rwanda. If they didn't do that, they would then get accusations of copyvio for the organisation.--LauraHale (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Products & Endorsements for Jennifer Lopez

I don't think products/endorsements should go into her main section because there is already a lot of information. Need i talk about her impact like bringing back Celeb endorsements etc? And recently she was just named #1 by UK; where does all of that go? Whatever...is there any chance of bringing it back or have you made up your mind? :\ If it was too long, it could have just been trimmed, the info that wasn't as relevant could be removed. I'm not really comparing but the Beyoncé Knowles article includes bio, artistry, legacy, philanthropy and other ventures (Which is basically products & endorsements)...and that article is a GA.. Sorry for the length of this message, i would just like you to maybe re-consider a little bit. If the article is too long i could begin to trim the legacy & artistry section? Please reply when you have time, thanks. −SoapJar 03:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to see my other message? It would be in my archives. Statυs (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My account is not working :( -

;Account Temporarily Unavailable

"Your account is currently unavailable due to a site issue. We expect this to be resolved shortly. Please try again in a few minutes." −SoapJar 06:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What the hell? That's really weird man. Why don't you just get Google Talk already? Statυs (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Till I Go Home 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Twitter discussions

As someone who participated in the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter/GA1. You should be aware of the current debates about similar topics:

1. Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2012_June_30#File:.40BarackObama_screenshot.jpg
2. Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2012_June_30#File:.40aplusk.JPG
3. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter
4. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Justin Bieber on Twitter--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

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. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you fucking serious? I made two reverts on a page where editors were reverting me with no reason to do so. Statυs (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. You were not blocked for violating WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay. So I got blocked for making one revert on a page where there were issues, and another with users revering without premise. Alright. Makes perfect sense to me. Statυs (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Another block from Toddst1? This is worrying me. —Hahc21 22:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to know how removing unsourced content: "The song was originally going to be released as the second single from the album; however, it was later announced that "Hard" would become the second single instead, whilst "Wait Your Turn" served as the promotional single" and having users who WP:IDONTLIKEIT (the fact that the song was released as a single) revert me, and reverting back twice as they had no premise to revert equals me being blocked. Statυs (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And as for yesterday, "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required". That is exactly what happened yesterday. You clearly aren't aware of what happened at all. Statυs (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely unfair. The only thing Status did is improving the page. "Wait Your Turn" was released as a single from Rated R, even though some users made some IDONTLIKE edits on them. At least he should be warned about the 3RR, but being blocked? It's just too much... — Tomica (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, Status: This goes well beyond that. You're not the first one blocked recently with no strong rationale behind it. I know that only for being involved on edit warring (as I suppose you may have been) you can get yourself blocked, but these actions are really suspicious. I assume good faith on their actions (they're admins, after all), but first Calvin999 loses the right to edit his own talk page by no apparent reason and without a guideline/policy supporting the block, and which was questioned by another admin on the bloking admin talk page, and now this, another unreasonable block. —Hahc21 22:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For everyone screaming "unfair", I'll ask the first, obvious question: where is the source that confirms this song is a single, anyway? I'll be sympathetic if someone can show me that Status was preventing someone from replacing well-sourced information with unsourced information, but I can't look at the article and see that.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at this. Bunch of sources saying that "Wait Your Turn" was and still IS available for digital download in certain territories in Europe, South America and Australia. Here is another source saying that the song was scheduled for an international release. "Hard" was released only in the US. — Tomica (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the definition of a single: "In music, a single or record single is a type of release, typically a recording of fewer tracks than an LP record or an album. This can be released for sale to the public in a variety of different formats. In most cases, the single is a song that is released separately from an album, but it can still appear on an album." It was released separately from the album in various markets for purchase. Thus, a single. A promotional single is "an audio or video recording distributed for free". Additionally, the source used to show that "Hard" was released as a single instead of "Wait Your Turn" only mentions "Hard" being a single. Statυs (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you WP:QUACK? Statυs (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The correctness of the edit isn't the issue. It's that neither version was cited (as KWW pointed out) and it was a case of "what I wrote is better than what s/he wrote" - a classic edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read my above statement? There are sources in the article calling it a future single when it was leaked, and then sources for it being released as a single, which the definition of such is stated above. There were zero sources in the article calling it a promotional single. Statυs (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You place an enormous burden on people watching articles to do research to determine that you are right. Do you think an edit summary that included a description like "released separately from the album, see http://itunes.apple.com/au/album/wait-your-turn-single/id341080603" might go a long way to changing the outcome of a situation like this?—Kww(talk) 23:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The information is clearly already present in the article. I didn't feel it be necessary. Statυs (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When two different editors revert your change, you really should stop and figure out what's going on and why you're being reverted. That's what we have talk pages for. And your behavior in this situation is why we have edit war blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A simple comment from Todd stating that I should be more clear when doing the edit, so users don't feel the need to revert would have been perfectly fine. But a block? And a block that involves yesterday's conflict (which is excluded as being an edit war) would be a conflict of interest: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace." Statυs (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

You missed my point. When I see an edit war going on, I make a quick analysis, and a big factor in that analysis is the explanation given by each editor. An editor that reasonably points at a policy or a source gets big brownie points when I'm trying to make my decision between "edit war" vs. "editor defending an article against vandalism". Very, very, very rarely am I going to read an entire article and see whether I think one editor is right or wrong. In fact, we aren't supposed to do that, because doing so comes very close to taking sides in a content dispute.—Kww(talk) 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What about the explanation given for reverting me in the first place? Does that not count for anything? One user claimed that the song was not released anywhere, when it is sourced in the article. The users clearly just didn't like it. I will repeat myself, a simple comment from Todd stating that I should be more clear on what I would be doing would be fine. Then, if it happens again and I do the same thing, a block would be justified. But here, it is not. I'd at least think that after I actually fully explain what happened, the issue could be resolved. But Todd clearly will have nothing of it, as he is not even replying to what I am saying about it. I could understand how it could look like at first, but after an in-dept explanation, it is clear that what I was doing what was not being disruptive to Misplaced Pages and a block should no longer be in place. Statυs (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly the point: based on the explanations given in the edit summaries, the two of you were equally in the wrong. If you provide me with an assurance that in the future you will always provide an explicit pointer to a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time, I will undo your block now. It's not going to protect you against 3RR, though, and you should remember that I do pay attention to your edits and I have a long memory.—Kww(talk) 00:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that after this experience, I will make sure that my edit summaries are good enough so it doesn't cause any of this. Statυs (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The editing restriction is going in your block log, so please be explicit: "I will always provide an explicit pointer to a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time".—Kww(talk) 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time. Statυs (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You are unblocked. There didn't seem to be any autoblocks in effect.—Kww(talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering how long it would take you (Status) to figure out that all you had to do was to say that the edit war was over and/or won't continue with the same behaviour. Good unblock Kww. Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Deseo (fragrance)

A tag has been placed on Deseo (fragrance), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. Please see Misplaced Pages:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SplashScreen (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh my! I totally forgot about this article. Statυs (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I saved the article on my userspace: User:Hahc21/Deseo in case it gets deleted. —Hahc21 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you do the same with all the other articles Splash seems to be nominating following my block? Statυs (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm on it. I just hope not to get blocked for it haha. —Hahc21 23:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Following this exchange, the two of you may wish to visit and contribute to this discussion. SplashScreen (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you see my comment about how I forgot about the article? I was starting the article, and then completely forgot about it. It would not be recreated as its state and I endorse its deletion. Deleted articles are allowed to be copied into userspace to be worked on and put back in at a later date. Statυs (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Beatles

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Beatles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yet more edit warring?

This time on If You Had My Love and yes, you are blocked again for resuming that behavior immediately upon release of your previous block for edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reverted the addition of unsourced content on an article and explained to the user that they need to provide a source for such information. Statυs (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but repeat reversions of the same edit is edit warring. . Perhaps you should actually read WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents. You're right Toddst1, but, per BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and the same EW: "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring." Also, EW says "When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons.", which was made by Status. Regards. —Hahc21 04:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Editing restriction: 'I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time.'", which I did Statυs (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• He is trying to maintain a WP:BLP! How is that grounds for a block? See WP:3RRNO. Till I Go Home 04:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the article is about a song by a living person (it's not a biography) doesn't mean you are free to edit war at will. Saying a single's genre is R&B is about as far from defamatory as you can get. You should learn a hell of a lot more about our policies if you're going to try to wikilawyer like that. Toddst1 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because the genre is not supported by a single source is ground enough to delete it already without further notice, and without being considered as Edit warring. —Hahc21 04:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And also, BLP doesn't explicitly mention "defamatory". It says any poorly sourced or unsourced content. If you've been aware of why that policy exists maybe you should understand why something as simple as a genre is controversial. Just to give you an example: Without a source, you can name a folk song as to belong to the reggae genre. —Hahc21 04:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where's the edit war? I'd like to know. I explained to the user why I reverted their edit, which is required of. There's tons of causes of users putting in genres in song articles without any sources, just what they feel the song is. Statυs (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See diffs above. Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not edit warring. Till I Go Home 05:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think it is you whom needs to learn more about Misplaced Pages's policies. Blocking people without a valid rationale is ridiculous and should never be tolerated. Till I Go Home 04:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Home. Knowing a "hell out" more of policies is not enough. You need to know why such policies exist and understand them to then, after that, properly apply your rationales based on the actions of the user. I've been here for almost 6 years, and 4 as a registered user, and I don't need to be an admin to know the policies from head to toe (which I already do since a couple of years ago), and i'm pretty sure that my grounds are perfectly supported. Cheers! —Hahc21 04:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• This really is quite shocking. The edit war policy states that an edit war "only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts". Status reverted two separate IPs on two different days who changed the genres without explanation. How is that edit warring? Seriously? How is reverting unsourced material edit warring? I would actually care for an explanation here. He even provided edit summaries explaining the changes, saying and how there need to be reliable sources to support the claim. This is really mind-baffling. Till I Go Home 04:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You and Status were both baffled when Calvin999 got blocked for edit warring, you were baffled when you got warned about participating in a 2-on-one edit war on Heidi Montag, you were baffled when your report on WP:ANEW got shut down and you were baffled when your complaint on ANI not only got shut down, but mocked by the closing administrator. What's baffling is that after all this disruption, you (and apparently both Hahc21 and Status) haven't bothered to figure out what an edit war is. Toddst1 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, I'm afraid those comments were way too harsh and can fall into personal attacks against Status and Home, since you're "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Should I take this to ANI? I'm not interested on such paperwork, but if this doesn't end and you keep pushing this way too far, I may be forced to do so. The grounds you took this time to block Status are unsupportable, per my consideration. Last time I agreed with your block, but i'm afraid I can't do it again this time. —Hahc21 05:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for randomly coming into this conversation (I saw a lot of edits on this page on "Special:Recent Changes" and wanted to see what was going on), but like Hahc21, Till I Go Home, and Status, I strongly disagree with this block. Like Till I Go Home and Hahc21 pointed out, Status didn't even revert edits from the same IP addresses. In fact, as Till I Go Home pointed out, he didn't even revert three times. He only reverted twice. That isn't an edit war. As Till I Go Home and Hahc21 have pointed out, he's removing unsourced information, which doesn't count as edit warring. I see no reason for Status to be blocked. He should really be unblocked. Hadger 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

People seem to be missing that Status voluntarily agreed to provide a source or policy reference whenever reverting for the second or greater time. That restriction is now in his block log. There's no doubt that without that restriction this block would be difficult to justify. With that restriction, though, it makes a lot more sense.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Was just looking back and noticed that I forgot to link "reliable source" to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources. That would be linking to a policy, would it not be? Kind of jumping the gun, I'd say. Fastily stated it best, Misplaced Pages is the "home to a community that belittles and harasses its own members for the most idiotic and childish reasons". But anyways, here's the thing Kww, that's not why I was even blocked. I was blocked for: "Edit warring: Continuing EW on If You Had My Love immediately after release of block for similar reversions". That says that I was EW on If You Had My Love prior to my block, and right after I was unblocked I reverted again. Statυs (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for edit warring on If You Had My Love, when I didn't actually break any polices. A user added an unsourced genre to the article, and I reverted, telling them to add a reliable source if they wanted to add a genre. This is per my editing restriction: "I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time." Statυs (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block has expired PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:31, 3 July 2012 (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.

Note to reviewing admin(s): Under almost any other circumstance, a second revert such as Status performed would not be grounds for blocking. In this particular circumstance, performing his second almost identical revert - immediately upon early release of his previous block for edit warring under very similar circumstances is continued disruptive editing and clear evidence that this editor does not know what edit warring is, why it is considered disruptive and what the acceptable exceptions are. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin(s): The block pattern of Toddst1 is currently being discussed at Administrators noticeboard. Statυs (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This block disturbs me a bit, but only a little. Status, you were asked to provide a pointer to a relevant policy or source whenever performing a second or higher revert. In this case, a source that indicates the song is "pop" that doesn't support "contemporary R&B" is what I would have been looking for, not a blanket statement about "unsourced" when the version you were reverting to also didn't have an explicit source. Think you can find me an example of what I was actually looking for?—Kww(talk) 10:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Status shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get out of a bullshit block that should never have been issued in the first place. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at all of this, I also think it is a "bullshit block" as Joe stated. The source verifying the genre was already included in the article's lead. The change he would revert was not sourced... He was simply undoing an unsourced change. How is that edit warring? Do your research before making "bullshit ". I _dןǝɥ I 23:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kww, after five and a half years and 61,000 edits (and a sysop bit) I'd expect that "unsourced" would be sufficient explanation without a bureaucratic ] wrapper. Nobody Ent 02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock would be appropriate as explained here Nobody Ent 02:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kww: I consider that asking a user to provide a reference supporting a specific genre may create some sort of conflict of interest, since that user may find a source only providing the genre they want to be included. As you are aware of all this sourcing genre debate, the fact that I asked the user to provide a source to cover his assumptions that the song was indeed R&B is a reasonable request, because different sources says different things. Statυs (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For any admin who happens to be looking at this unblock request and wondering if its worth it now, just because there is only a half and hour left of my block does not mean that it is no longer relevant or stands. It is ridiculous that no one has reviewed my unblock request (accept or deny). This was an unjust block, as many users have stated on this page. Statυs (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty ridiculous that no one reviewed it. Status, my rollback rights got removed earlier today, and suddenly I don't want to be a part of the Misplaced Pages community anymore :( Till I Go Home 03:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I am aware of that. See below. Statυs (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Home: Well overcome this situation. Call me wikilawyer, call me wikifriend, i'm against losing incredible users for such things like this. Bad things happens; but as I say, every bad thing carries many good things to come. Just be patient. —Hahc21 04:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Hahc21 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

hey

I saw that you are blocked I don't really see what you did wrong, that sucks :| anyway i think i have the commercial performance for If You Had My Love finished basically. I'm trying to look for more stuff for music/lyrics and release but i am not getting farr :( Can you do recording/production? −SoapJar 06:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. It will all be sorted out soon. I can do recording and production. You know where to find me. Statυs (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, i saw that. Some people were a bit unreasonable. Anyway, if you're not busy now, FB? Oh i have the rest of the day free, we could maybe finish up this song and go to the next −SoapJar 06:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 June newsletter

Apologies for the lateness of this letter; our usual bot wasn't working. We are now entering round 4, our semi-finals, and have our final 16. A score of 243 was required to reach this round; significantly more than 2011's 76 points, and only a little behind 2010's 250 points. By comparison, last year, 150 points in round 4 secured a place in the final; in 2010, 430 were needed. Commiserations to Pool A's igordebraga (submissions), who scored 242 points, missing out on a place in the round by a whisker. However, congratulations to Pool B's Grapple X (submissions), whose television articles have brought him another round victory. Pool A's Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came second overall, with an impressive list of biological did you knows, good articles and featured articles. Third overall was Pool D's Muboshgu (submissions), with a long list of contibutions, mostly relating to baseball. Of course, with the points resetting every round, the playing field has been levelled. The most successful Pool was Pool D, which saw seven into the final round. Pool B saw four, C saw three and Pool A saw only the two round leaders.

A quick note about other competitions taking place on Misplaced Pages which may be of interest. There are 13 days remaining in the June-July GAN backlog elimination drive, but it is not too late to take part. August will also see the return of The Core Contest- a one month long competition first run in 2007. While the WikiCup awards points for audited content on any subject, The Core Contest about is raw article improvement, focussing heavily on the most important articles on Misplaced Pages. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 10:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Help!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Can somebody please redirect my userpage to here, my talk page? Thank you. Statυs (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done

More Help!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Why exactly is this still open when it was confirmed to be another user (Hahc21) not noticing they were logged out of their account? Statυs (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason is all cases generally stay open for at least 7 days from the start of the investigation. Mdann52 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

In light of recent events, I find this something I must do. I have always been aware that I am not irreplaceable, and have always shown pride in the fact that I have been an upstanding editor who has made good contributions to the project. After two blocks, although unjustified, I can no longer say that is true. I feel beaten down, to say the least. I had originally added the {{retired}} template to this talk page, but then I remembered all the projects that I had started and had not completed. Once my block expires, I will finish up the remaining projects I have under development and take a leave of absence from Misplaced Pages. I don't know for how long that may be; think of it as an extended Wikibreak. I may end up never coming back. It will be hard at first, as I have been an active member of the English Misplaced Pages for almost two years now, but I will try my best to stay away.

I wish you all the best of luck with your endeavors.

— Statυs (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the strong support I have been getting from users and seeing that I would actually be missed, the above is no longer accurate. I still, however, am considering retirement. I will still continue to edit regularly, just not as much. Statυs (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Retiring

Sorry to see you go. This whole dispute has been stupid and it sucks that they forced it to this level. :( Toa Nidhiki05 16:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it is. I've always been aware that Wikipedians aren't Irreplaceable, so I've always prided myself on being an active editor and not running into any major trouble. That has just pushed me over the edge. It will be a hard thing to do, as I have been an active member of the project for almost two years, but it has to be done. Of course, I will edit a few times, and will, hopefully, eventually weed myself from Misplaced Pages. I will be writing a formal message of my departure and reasoning once I am free of this unjustice. Statυs (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Come online. Right away! — Tomica (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

sadness

aw you're retired :'(? That sucks....Im sad...now there is no hope for JLo articles, gah... :'( I'm actually sad cause we had plans for other things here. I'll miss you. −SoapJar 16:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is going to take some time. I, of course, will finish up the ends of projects I already stated. That is including "If You Had My Love". Statυs (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's good i guess...there's so many other things though they will never be good without you :(...are you sure this is what you are doing? It's so damn unfair what happened but still, is that one of the factors that made you decide this?:| −SoapJar 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to my statement above for that answer. I love editing Misplaced Pages. I love the satisfaction of comparing how an article looked before and after expansion. I love that little green icon. I love that nice star. But there are many things that are corrupt here that I just cannot deal with. I think User_talk:Fastily explained it best when he retired. Statυs (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, saw that :( i get it, you're right... well i hope we can still talk occasionally once you're gone, about JLo i mean. U 'get it'. :)−SoapJar 16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can. You always know where to find me. Statυs (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, just so you know, when the projects are indeed done and I am not active editing anymore, you can come to me anytime with help you may need on any projects you are working on. Statυs (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Leaving

Awwh it sucks to see you go :( You've helped Misplaced Pages so much, it really won't be the same without you!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And it will suck to go. I am not exactly quitting cold turkey, so I will still come on from time to time. A few GA nominations I have to finish up (including yours), and articles I worked on that I have yet to nominate for GA. I may end up just taking a long break, who knows. But for now, I am finishing up a few things that I need to, and getting the hell out of here. Statυs (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for the pass at Gym Partner. And, it is bad to see you leave... :) I wish you all the best in the future and hope that You will get a life unlike me, as all I do as edit Misplaced Pages 24/7, and have not been outside for a week now. :) Cheers, --Khanassassin ☪ 16:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. Haha, it's been the same for me, don't worry about it. I wish you all the best. Statυs (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn, it's true what they said about our best editors leaving from blocks that wasn't really warranted. Sucks to see you go. Erick (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it most certainly is. I have finally found and constructed the information for a background section that could be used on "No Me Ames". I will add it to the article once I'm unblocked. We should then nominate it for GA. Statυs (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Departure

This is quite disgusting. You've been an incredible friend and good editor and watch you leave is very sad. I'm praying for you to stay, but it's your desicion at the end. I'll be in contact with you from the outside ans we've been doing. This situation discouraged me either from editing on Misplaced Pages, and i think I will extend my Wikibreak for a longer period. Cheers! —Hahc21 18:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Hahc. I think that is more or less what I will being. We're not the only ones who have been discouraged over this. Statυs (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jeeze i'll be sorry to see you go if you end up retiring. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be sad to go. Especially with you finally starting to edit again. Statυs (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Ain't it funny...

...how both I and User:Till I Go Home get our Rollback rights removed, yet User:Hahc21 does not? Let me explain. User:Toddst1 left Till I Go Home a long message on their talk page stating that "Rollback requires a thorough understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR and to some extent WP:BLP all of which you are clearly having problems with." He left a note stating: "Editor's repeated statements have made it clear that s/he doesn't understand what an EW is and isn't, so removing RB. This may be restored later if the user demonstrates a full understanding of the policy." Now, Rollback does not require any of the sort. The page states: "Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user). Similarly, editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war." Till I Go Home has not done anything of the sort, and should not have his rollback rights removed. Similarity, Toddst1 has accused Hahc21 of not the same issues, but has not removed his rights. My rollback rights were also removed for "repeated blocks for edit warring, not understanding EW policy and exceptions". "not understanding EW policy and exceptions" is not a valid reason to remove rollback rights, as I previously stated above. He is, however, still entitled to remove the rights per: "Similarly, editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war." But he is still bound by this: "However, they should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action." which in this case would be normal undoing. It has also been disputed the fact that what I had done was even an EW, which has been discussed above. User:Gimmetoo explained this situation perfectly: "This is a good example of the problem of inconsistent standards and punishment. Not everyone agrees there was even edit warring." Toddst1 blocking me because he felt I was edit warring isn't technically wrong, as Gimmetoo also stated, but him then taking away my user rights is, especially if I hadn't even used the feature during the "edit war". And also considering I rarely have even used the tool. Statυs (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I forgot that this user right is required to use Huggle. I don't use it on Misplaced Pages itself, only on Huggle. Now I can't use Huggle... Statυs (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just another in the long list of abusive, bullshit blocks against editors trying to protect the encyclopedia. Unfortunately (Personal attack removed) Toddst1 is far more concerned with his ego than actually doing anything helpful here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And he has done it again!! May I reiterate my earlier statement, "Do your research before making 'bullshit '." I _dןǝɥ I 23:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm about wanting to ask him if he's open to recall, but I have no interest in getting in a Meta dispute. Toa Nidhiki05 00:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Todd doesn't seem to want to leave a response here, which he is clearly aware of, as he has asking other user to comment to another user about something they said here, I will be forced to bring this up in, yet another, ANI report. Edits to this section can still be made until I am unblocked, in which time I will be moving this to a appropriate section of Misplaced Pages where all can see. I'm really interested in seeing what others think of this. Statυs (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, he asked me to look at the one edit, I did, I left an appropriate, personal message, limited solely to the issue of the post. I haven't looked into Status's block, but noticed that it was already being discussed at ANI earlier. The only other time I've had contact with Toddst1 was when I unblocked User:FleetCommand, someone who Toddst1 had blocked. Obviously, we aren't buddies. I'm guessing that is why he asked me, since most people would see me as neutral in regards to his actions, plus I'm rather outspoken about bad blocks and admin accountability myself (check contribs if there is a doubt). I'm not taking sides here, I just said personal attacks aren't acceptable and I politely asked him to remove them. And of course you are welcome to bring it up in any venue and I will happily participate, although the paragraph above is the whole story. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was in no way implying that you two were friends and he asked you to stick up for him. I have no problem with the message you left the user. I was just noting evidence to show that he was aware of this discussion, but refused to comment. This is per the ANI page: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." I tried, and it backfired. Statυs (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't take it wrong, and honestly, it was probably better that he asked someone neutral to take a look and for him to step back a bit, so I won't hold that against him. As an admin, when I'm in a contentious situation, I will ask neutral editors or admins to take a look at a situation, to make sure I don't overreact. We are all flawed humans, after all. As for the frustration, I know there are always plenty of reasons to be upset over a block, good or bad, so I don't begrudge anyone for a little venting. At this point, I just don't want to see more blocks, good or bad, over the situation. Since you mentioned and linked the note and my comment, I thought it would be proper if I came in and addressed your valid concerns. I'm always available to answer why I take any action. As for the block, I will have to leave that to you, ANI and him for now, I just don't have the time to properly review it or I gladly would. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have seen you around, and I appreciate that. You're a really good admin. There should be more like you. Statυs (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Part of the reason I just started WP:WikiProject Editor Retention was to deal with these concerns, and of course all the different reasons why editors leave Misplaced Pages. I do not like seeing "retired" banners on editors pages when the editor could be instead helping us build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that WikiProject is a great thing. There are surely some issues with the blocking yesterday. I think Gimmetoo stated it best: "This is a good example of the problem of inconsistent standards and punishment. Not everyone agrees there was even edit warring. In practice, unsourced content routinely gets removed, and editors are not usually blocked for it. To rephrase bbb23: Even if one believes that Status's action wasn't perfect... that doesn't make it wrong. User:Toddst1 apparently has a particular view of edit warring. Now, people are welcome to have a range of views, but Toddst1 administrated those views by blocks and removal of user rights. I wonder, how would Toddst1 react to someone blocking him over a difference of view of appropriate administration? An admin needs to look at the overall situation, including the likely effect on the editors involved, before using tools. So Status is considering leaving - is that really a good outcome?" Additionally, for that reason, don't you think I should have my rollback rights restored, per 1) being removing several hours after my block, seems as if he didn't notice (as he said) I had them and jumped to remove them when he noticed and 2) it is even being disputed that I was edit warring in the first place, by many other editors. The last reason would be the understanding thing, which is the only reason he gave Till I Go Home, which isn't a requirement to have rollback. Statυs (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

hey

Can we finish the article now? :) −SoapJar 06:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there some place you should be? Statυs (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm there right now on FB, where are you? −SoapJar 06:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Silk Purse Award

		Silk Purse Award
		I am both pleased and honored to present you with the Silk Purse Award in appreciation for your superb improvements to the Feelin' So Good (video) article, essentially changing what was seen as a sow's ear by one into a terrific silk purse for everyone else. A lack of nominator diligence is no reason to delete a notable topic. Schmidt, 09:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this award. It means very much to me. I don't know if you noticed the above, but I haven't exactly felt appreciated around here as of late. Statυs (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't let a rogue admin run you off the wiki. Silverseren 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

• Analysis: Uncovering scientific plagiarism

• Op-ed: Representing knowledge – metadata, data and linked data

• News and notes: RfC on joining lobby group; JSTOR accounts for Wikipedians and the article feedback tool

• In the news: Public relations on Misplaced Pages: friend or foe?

• Discussion report: Discussion reports and miscellaneous articulations

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: Burning rubber with WikiProject Motorsport

• Featured content: Heads up

• Arbitration report: Three open cases, motion for the removal of Carnildo's administrative tools

• Technology report: Initialisms abound: QA and HTML5

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the opportunity to make substantial valuable contributions to an article using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High . The score is calculated by combining an article's readership and quality.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs			Cleanup
	Hilary Duff: This Is Now			Sheppard Solomon
	Krazy (song)			Sheryl Crow discography
	Jess Hardy			History of Quebec
	Hammer Dance		Merge
	Feel the Noise			Wyoming Public Schools
	Function (song)			Strongbow (cider)
	Ice Cream Paint Job			David Treahearn
	Ankara Arena		Add sources
	Looks Like Sex			American Idol (season 11)
	On Fire (Lloyd Banks song)			Dan Bull
	List of alternative hip hop artists			DanceLife
	Tag Team (group)		Wikify
	In Search of Santa			Basement Jaxx discography
	Troy Oliver			Step to Me
	Yas Island			Job Accommodation Network
	Chico Bennett		Expand
	Eyes Wide Open (Gotye song)			Jessica Hardy
	Armeets Arena			Kristina Davis
	Disco Inferno (50 Cent song)			Llorando se fue

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering retirement?

Wow, that came as a surprise when I saw it. I should hope that you give that idea a lot of thought before jumping too quickly. I personally think you do some very awesome work around here that often incorporates a lot of really good, straight forward common sense. When I stumble upon music articles that are really messed up, I often use your last edit in history as a calibration tool for figuring out what went wrong it after you left. I trust your judgement and knowledge in the area of modern pop music, and you're the user I'd most likely come to if I needed advice or a second opinion in that particular subject area. I urge you to try hard to shrug off whatever is currently bothering you, stand up straight, and carry on with what you do best. I look forward to seeing more of you in the months to come. :)  -- WikHead (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words, it really means a lot to me. You probably have taken a look now and seen the above mess on my talk page. Because of all this, I have felt as if I am really appreciated here. After the response when I posted the template here, it seems as if I was wrong. I am trying very hard not to let it bother me, but it's quite difficult. Statυs (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed notice there was a bit of a disturbance above, and I clearly understand how it could come as quite an unexpected blow. Only you know what's best for you, but this may be the true test of your integrity... and I'm sure you will continue to shine very brightly once you're finally over this hurdle, and the uncomfortable situation is far behind you. Next time I return to your talk page, I'm really hoping to see that you've removed that template. We need you Man, get a grip .  -- WikHead (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

wow

great amazing work on Feelin' So Good! WOW you've really turned that page around in a short amount of time....wow you expanded it so much. Love it, i just read it. :) −SoapJar 04:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I tried my best! Statυs (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG!

Look at my talk page I am being accused of posting spam on Tomorrow (The Cranberries song) by posting this link and if notice all the pages we have worked on including Sparks Fly have been brought into this and it is claimed that we posted spam links. LOL! Swifty* 04:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bennifer

I reinstated your removed comments at this AfD with a strikethrough, bit I see you have removed them again. Please note that Misplaced Pages policy (WP:AFDFORMAT) states "o not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one" and the strikethrough technique is reccomended. It is important for the closing administrator to see the evolution of the debate when closing an AfD nomination, so it's best that all comments remain on the page. Thanks, SplashScreen (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)