Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:38, 7 January 2017

Dear Sissy Crybaby and your new Sissy Crybaby buddy

I told you before, I don't know who you are, nor do I care about you. I only look at edits, not who is making them. However, both of your names have been popping up on my list more and more - and not in a good way, which makes me start to know who you are. And now the two of you are conspiring against me? I mean, come on, you act like everything you do on WP isn't trackable. Even if you delete it, it is still available. Even when you sent him a "thank you" that doesn't show up on your history page, that stuff is available to me.

Be careful. You will lose editing privileges.

Sincerly, Kellymoat (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

One of the users has been blocked as a sock puppet (abuse of multiple accounts). I wonder if we should investigate the other conspirator. Kellymoat (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

2016

All entries from 2016 have been removed. If you would like to see anything from the past, feel free to use the history page.

Kellymoat (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Never Give Up

Hi, this is Sia fan britney, I just wanted to let you know, if you are talking about the "Never Give Up" page, Max Martin had no involvement with the song. If he did, it would have said so on the cover where it says "produced by Greg Kurstin," "Produced by: Greg Kurstin & Max Martin," and the song wasn't written by Max, but rather by Sia and Greg Kurstin, so YOU are at fault here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sia fan britney (talk • contribs) 19:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Just post a source for the information. Otherwise, I could say that it was written by Kelly Moat. Who knows what the truth is - UNLESS YOU SOURCE IT. Kellymoat (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Where is your source for Max Martin then? Sia fan britney (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Sia fan britney

(talk page stalker) Hi Kelly, which aspect of this edit are you objecting to? If the cover credits the producer, then the addition of Max Martin would presumably need to be sourced. It would be hard for someone to prove that someone was not a producer, which you're sort of requiring by reverting and resubmitting the info. If you're asking for a reference for the writer(s), that might be reasonable to ask. @Sia fan britney: does this information appear on the single's liner notes, or what? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to find information on who wrote the song, but I've been unsuccessful, even down to checking sources like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. The only real source I could find that talked about the single is a press release from Sony, but it doesn't indicate who wrote the track. I think it's reasonable to ask for a reference on this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what is right. But if someone wants to come and change what has already been written, they should be sourcing it. Obviously, the cover tells part of the story. But it is not a complete list. I mean, if he is so insistent that it should be written a certain way, he must have a source somewhere. But refuses to post it, which leads me to question the edit altogether. Kellymoat (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

They should, but you are also beyond the reasonable amount of reverts on the matter, and edit-warring is just as problematic. Please remember WP:3RR. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I started handing out warnings. Kellymoat (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You could still get nailed by an admin for this. Warnings aren't get-out-of-block-free cards. Edit-warring is disruptive even if you are right. If you find yourself maxed on reverts, then you should consider getting help. Just something to keep in mind. It's a delicate balance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb, The writing credits of Sia Furler and Greg Kurstin for the song Never Give Up appear in the single's linear notes. Sia fan britney (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Sia fan britney

@Sia fan britney: Use Template:Cite AV media notes, please. Kelly, will that resolve the issue for you? If Sia fan is asserting that the information appears on the liner notes, I've no reason to doubt them. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kelly, is this issue resolved? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It might as well be. I can't seem to find a complete list of credits.Kellymoat (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Where's the vandalism?

So edits trying to properly convey appropriate genres for songs & albums are listed as unconstructive & vandalism? I understand the point of reliable sources, but the song page I edited (Hymn for the Weekend) had a genre with NO SOURCE (alternative rock) that I removed, and many other song pages have genres listed with no sources either. Which brings me to the point that there's not always reliable sources to confirm the genres of songs and albums to begin with, as just listening to & researching the music can hopefully give the listener the best source of what genre that song/album falls under. To further my case, Hymn for the Weekend is part of A Head Full of Dreams, and that page does not list alternative rock as one of it's genres at all.

This is the same with the Ghost Stories album page, which lists Electronica, Pop, & Synthpop as the main genres the album falls under; EVEN THOUGH the majority of songs on that album incorporate pop rock and much of the song pages themselves lists Pop rock as their proper genres of music. Again I understand the use of RELIABLE sources, but these aren't always available. So are the edits I made really vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by USMC Lance (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

KISS did a disco song. So did the Rolling Stones and Rod Stewart. Are you going to call any of them disco bands? A song can have a genre that the album does not. An album can have a genre that the band does not.

As to sources, if you don't have sources, why are you changing it? That is considered disruptive editing, which falls under the category of vandalism.

Kellymoat (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Stepford wives Article

Not an issue so feel free to delete this after reading but just wanted to confirm I was referring to this article here http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A0DE2DA1430F932A25755C0A9629C8B63 which is referenced in the Stepford wives page. I'm not sure which article from 1975 you were referring to Dalegrivinok (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That article called the original a thriller -- which you removed?

I was talking about the source in the first line of the article. A 1975 NYT review. The word horror isn't even brought up.

Kellymoat (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah i see but horror is brought up - I was referring to a portion further down in the article which reads " The first Stepford Wives exploited the horror-movie implications of this premise, rather than its comic possibilities. " hence why I removed "/thriller " as it doesn't say " horror/thriller rather than comedy " as the previous edit read it says horror rather than comic ( comedy ) Dalegrivinok (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

LOL. User has been blocked as a sock puppet. Kellymoat (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Creed

Please stop reverting. There has been no official announcement of the band's break-up. If there appears one - then we can point out that the band has broken up. Untill then, the band is still existing and their members can't and shouldn't be listed as former members of the band.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

I don't know what the situation is. But, to keep the section consistent with other sections, I assume that they are all former. For example, the info box has 2012 as an end date, it does not say hiatus. Also, the members have 2012 as an end date, it does not say present. When you see that sort of information, what would you think? Kellymoat (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverting a sock

You just went through a number of articles on my watchlist, reverting a blocked sock. However, some of your reverts apparently reinstated vandalism that the sock had removed. Thanks for watching out for socks and reverting their edits, but please be careful about what you revert. Sometimes socks made productive edits. Those edits should be allowed to stand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the beautiful thing about wikipedia. Any edit can be done, undone, and redone. I know that it is a hassle, and I complain about it when it is pages on my list. But it actually is more expedient to revert the socks and have editors re-edit the pages, than it is to review each and every edit made by the sock to check which is a valid edit.

Plus, by being socks, you can't trust that their edits are valid, even if they appear valid. I have seen socks makes edits, and then use another sock name to revert their own edit. It really is a messy situation. Kellymoat (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

G5 nominations

Hi, I have declined G5 nominations that you made, David Anthony Marshall and Michael Wandmacher because the articles were written before the user was banned or blocked. The pages were written by the master and not the socks. Anyway prod could be used for under referenced actor pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

White Zombie

Hi, I would like to know why you keep reverting my changes on the White Zombie. I was adding what appears to be important to note and you keep reverting. 2602:306:BDA9:8610:B07B:C42A:602C:A1DF (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Another user who updates BPI certifications before the site has updated...

Hey Kellymoat, just letting you know as I've seen you reverting users who have updated BPI certifications before the site has actually updated, so you might want to keep an eye out: another user, Impressive instant (talk · contribs), appears to have taken up this practice. I reverted their latest additions and warned them, but they may do it in days and weeks to come. Ss112 16:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on I See You

Hi, I just wanted to further explain why "Say Something Loving" is not a single. The xx didn't say it was the next single, and no source has been provided to say it's a single, so unless you or someone else can find one, it is for now a promotional single. I don't feel like arguing about the whole "Focus" being the lead single or not thing, but I just wanted to clarify that there is a difference in the reason for my edits in these instances. For "Focus", it was a matter of the fact that it was included on the Japanese edition of Dangerous Woman, so I thought it should be put as the lead single. Now, apparently her label cancelled it as the lead single, which is fine. As for "Say Something Loving", it is not a single because no one has said it is. I hope this clarifies things for you. 73.81.157.169 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you've decided to not be reasonable and talk this out like adults. That's unfortunate, but as I said on the page, the person who added the song as a single was an anonymous user who didn't provide a source, so once again, unless you provide a source, you cannot have it as a single. It goes against Misplaced Pages's policies. 73.81.159.202 (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I had reverted your edit before you left your message. I assumed after the 2nd revert that you wrote the message to explain yourself (an apology, of sorts). I didn't realize that I was expected to respond. Kellymoat (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

That's why I messaged you, in the hopes that you would talk this out here instead of continually reverting my edits, because you're wrong. The song is a promo single unless you can find a source that it's a single. I don't need to find a source for it being a promo single because it being released is all I need as proof. When a song is released before an album's release it is either a single or a promo single. If nothing says it's a single, it's a promo single. You are being incredibly stubborn here over such a small thing, I'm really not sure why you're so obsessed with reverting my edits. Does it make you feel like you accomplished something? Either way, you're wrong, so please stop, or I will report you. 73.81.145.113 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

But now we are back to you contradicting yourself. On other pages you are editing, you are adding "promo singles" to the list of singles. Yet, here, you want a "promo single" removed?

And, like I said in the edit summary - the song is listed in their discography as a single, not as a promo single. Kellymoat (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

What? First of all, that was only one page: Focus with Dangerous Woman. Second, Focus wasn't a promo single in my mind, because, as I've said before, it was included on the Japanese edition of the album. If you ask me, it is the lead single from the album, but I'm not about the get myself in an edit war because it's not a big deal. You, however, don't seem to mind being in an edit war. Like, do you really care if Say Something Loving is a single or a promo single that much? Because it seems more likely that you have some personal vendetta against me. 73.81.155.146 (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Antidote edit

I didn't mean to be disruptive, but what disqualifies Antidote from being Alternative R&B? I know it's from a rapper, but there is singing for about three-fourths of the song. Just curious.69.130.102.235 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

did you provide a source for you change?Kellymoat (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring on I See You

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PeopleEater143 (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)