User talk:Fan4Life

Welcome!

Hello, Fan4Life, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --DrWho42 (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent" being two parters

I will take a read and give my opinion, I am already thinking they should be two parters though, as there is a clear link between "The Girl Who Died" and "The Woman Who Lived" and also "Face the Raven", "Heaven Sent" and "Hell Bent". Lotrjw (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my outburst here the other day. I did not realize you'd found something new at the time, and when I went to the discussion page all I saw was the second discussion which had closed. I didn't see the third one was ongoing. I'll address what I'm able to but, as I've just written on the talk page, I cannot access DWE so I'll leave that to others' able minds. If you haven't already, I'd suggest inviting User:DonQuixote, as he probably has the most level head and even-handed, reason-based approach of any DW editor. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost

Hi! Would you be interested in being interviewed for the Signpost? I'd like to write about WikiProject Doctor Who. Please ping me if you're interested. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Class (2016 TV series)#Guest in the cast list

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Class (2016 TV series)#Guest in the cast list. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fan4Life. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Ariana Grande

Just so you are aware, I've begun a discussion at the page, listed above, concerning the need to add a "2017" year to the article. livelikemusic talk! 23:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Invitation

Hello!
I noticed you've made edits to Ariana Grande articles. I thought you may be interested in joining
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ariana Grande

We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ariana and her discography. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page!
Thank You. LikeGaga

Ariana Grande

Many apologies. I did not intend to remove your name. Somehow I did it while reviewing the page and did not notice that I had saved a change. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fan4Life. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Your recent editing history at Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz 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.
I can't actually believe you've been blocked four times in the past year and you've learnt nothing. You're still edit warring instead of discussing on talk pages. You need to stop and discuss per WP:BRD or you will get blocked again. Ss112 13:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current consensus is just to include experimental and psychedelic, no new consensus has been reached, it is merely being discussed. Fan4Life (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? The genre tags section on the talk page says no such thing and has no such consensus about "let's include experimental and psychedelic". Psychedelic pop has been on the page for at least a month. Ss112 13:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aleccat added it on December 27, 2017. Ss112 13:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But consensus was reached in the discussion Talk:Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz#Genre tags, and a discussion between two editors can't override that as two editors is not enough for consensus. Fan4Life (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who is right or wrong in a content dispute is irrelevant as it is not an excuse for edit warring. STOP NOW. Sort this out on the relevant talk page. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question

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.

I'm currently involved in a dispute over at Miley Cyrus & Her Dead Petz regarding the genre tags in the infobox. User:Aleccat added psychedelic pop without discussing it first, and now both they and User:Ss112, the only other user involved, are refusing to continue the discussion. So what can I do without breaking policy to make sure that this change doesn't remain? I can't revert, because that would be edit warring, and the other users aren't willing to discuss it. Fan4Life (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DR Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC, WP:DR, WP:30 to name but a few. –Davey2010^Talk 18:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Fan4Life (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Airports, customs is the point of no return for all passengers

I noticed you added this paragraph in Customs at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=736864330&oldid=729562834&title=Customs

At Airports, customs is the point of no return for all passengers, once a passenger has cleared customs, they cannot go back.

What do you mean? how does it work? 51.235.112.228 (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Streaming is not listed on other single pages"

It actually is on plenty that I see. Perhaps not Ariana Grande articles; doesn't matter where you're looking. It's still a format a song can be released in. Your edit has been reverted, so please discuss this on the talk page if you disagree with its inclusion, and do not edit war per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. Ss112 15:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Your recent editing history at No Tears Left to Cry 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. CoolMarc 13:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one edit-warring, you are refusing to discuss your proposed change and are instead reverting every time you get reverted. Fan4Life (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fan4Life reported by User:Coolmarc (Result: ). Thank you. CoolMarc 13:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed that you be blocked for edit warring. You might avoid this if you promise to take a break from the article. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now edit warring at Ariana Grande discography

See User talk:EdJohnston#After Fan4Life's restriction from the now-fully protected No Tears Left to Cry... Please explain why you shouldn't be blocked for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cover artwork

Hi Fan4Life, can you add cover artwork to the infobox at Jumanji (B Young song) please? --Theo (contribs) 22:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Sweetener (album), you may be blocked from editing. The Fallon source does not confirm the album will have a title track. This has already been removed. Your continuing to restore it is disruptive. Ss112 02:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Sweetener" is on the track list in the NTLTC video, and she announced that the album is called Sweetener, confirming that the song is on the album. Fan4Life (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history at Sweetener (album) 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. livelikemusic talk! 15:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic: Are you going to warn User:Hayman30 as well? Because it's impossible for just one user to be edit warring and you can't warn one involved user but not another. Fan4Life (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fan4Life: It appears Hayman is not abusing the revert such as you are. You've been warned multiple times about this across multiple pages, and have received multiple blocks for this behavior. Simply stop. Don't try and place blame on someone else to try and avoid your own behavior. livelikemusic talk! 15:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Livelikemusic: I'm not trying to blame anyone else, I'm just pointing out that a user can't be engaged in an edit war on their own. Fan4Life (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fan4Life: You've been reverting users for days, Fan4Life. You should know better than that, given your history of blocks and warnings. Don't try and pin-point one single editor, when the only editor to ultimately blame is yourself. Again, stop. Revert again, and you'll be reported. livelikemusic talk! 15:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fan4Life, the reverts need to end now and you need to get consensus on the respective article talk pages for your position.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one trying to change something that was undisputed for weeks, you don't need consensus to maintain a version of a page, you need consensus to change it. Fan4Life (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "I'm right" clause for violating 3RR. You have been blocked repeatedly for edit warring and appear to have learned nothing from the sanctions. Discuss the issue on the talk page instead of repeatedly hitting the undo button.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was saying. I was merely pointing out that I am being told to open a discussion in order to maintain the existing and previously stable versions of pages, but users attempting to change these pages aren't being told to open a discussion. Fan4Life (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blatant lie. I've already left a message on the article talk page a full day ago. You never responded. Hayman30 (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history at The Light Is Coming 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. Hayman30 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Stop edit warring at Ariana Grande. You will be blocked again if you continue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

If you revert again on Ariana Grande I will have no hesitation in filing a report at 3RR. USE THE TALK PAGE: - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fan4Life. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine

Hi there. Sources such as Billboard don't refer to "Imagine" as a promotional single, but let's wait until it is released. For the time being, im not unding your changes but i want you to know that we don't need confirmation from an artist or their team. If a song is released for sales it's a single, WP:BLUE applies unless something else is said otherwise. Best regards! --Miaow 18:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Media sources are known to frequently misuse the word "single", Billboard referred to both Be Alright and TLIC as singles. A song being released for sale does not make it a single, that is simply not true. Saying we don't need confirmation from the artist or their team is saying we don't need a reliable source. Fan4Life (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. I mean, we don't need confirmation from an artist to know if a song is a single or not. You have added "promotional single" and sources doesn't state that claim (WP:OR). If "Imagine" is just a promotional single, im pretty sure she'll say it.--Miaow 22:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there's also no source that it's the second single, other than media sources who are known to frequently misuse the word "single". Fan4Life (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Side2SideDW and Techoliver298 are the same person

Hi. With my evidence, I doubt that Side2SideDW and Techoliver298 are the same person. Side2SideDW remains inactive since July 15, 2017. Four months later, Techoliver298 created on November 20, that has continued by months and make obvious that whenever s/he edit the page s/he will be the same person.

Cheap Thrills (song): 12 Sept. 2016, Side2SideDW [1][2]; June-July 2018‎, Techoliver298 [3][4][5]
Sorry Not Sorry (Demi Lovato song): July 15, 2017, Side2SideDW [6]; 8 June 2018, Techoliver298 [7]

If you feel the evidence is strong enough to warrant the SPI then go for it. 2402:1980:246:3413:1218:1217:E6CC:6789 (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Trillfendi (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walking on Air (Katy Perry song)

Billboard called "disco" shortened for "Discotheque" which redirected to "Nightclub", rather than a disco genre. 2402:1980:8249:F438:7066:7F10:ABE9:B237 (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you.--NØ 16:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Can you please vote or comment at Talk:Walking on Air (Katy Perry song)#RfC: genre infobox dispute involving the genre infobox dispute on the page? 2402:1980:8253:BB42:A207:2831:C638:FA7D (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walking on Air (Katy Perry song) - Can you help?

Hi Fan4Life. In "Composition" section says elements of disco music. However the Billboard link from the section, does not said it such, and here's another Billboard link. 2402:1980:8240:34F:1071:C76F:76B2:109B (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine

Ariana said on Twitter that it’s not a promotional single. [8] I also provided 10 sources that call it a single. Dare to revert me one more time and I’ll email an admin to block you.—NØ 21:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me. Ariana never said it's not a promotional single, she just said that she doesn't like to use the word promo. Media outlets frequently misuse the word single. Ariana confirmed on Twitter that 7 Rings would be the second single. Fan4Life (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Ariana said that 7 rings is the “second” single doesn’t mean imagine wasn’t a single. That’s unpublished synthesis of the source to fit your narrative. It’s definitely a single and more than 10 reliable sources agree. There are 0 sources being used to support the “promotional single” argument and we literally have a tweet from Ariana explicitly stating it’s not a promo single.—NØ 23:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana explicitly saying 7 Rings is the second single does mean that Imagine wasn't a single as it would be incorrect otherwise. Ariana didn't at any point state it's not a promotional single, she just said she doesn't like to use the word "promo". You're being selective with sources to fit your view, you're literally saying that Ariana explicitly saying 7 Rings is the second single isn't a good enough source but her saying that she doesn't like to call Imagine a "promo" single is a good enough source, which is ridiculous. Media outlets are known to frequently misuse the word "single", they call any song that isn't an album track a single regardless of whether it is or not, The Light Is Coming was referred to as a single by many media outlets even though both Ariana and her label explicitly called it a promtional single, plus there's various reliable sources that have explicitly called Imagine a promotional single.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Fan4Life (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2402:1980:824E:592B:5B3F:BFAC:78E9:E58A (talk) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Ariana Grande Dates Sweetener Tour

Could you add today's show, in Tampa, and the one of Orlando, which is tomorrow, in the tour dates please ? AnthonyFG (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those shows have been rescheduled to November 24 and 25 due to Ariana being ill. Fan4Life (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for answering. And I see that a Manchester date was added, but I don't recall Ariana saying anything yet about Manchester or any ticket sales about the date. Is it sure ? AnthonyFG (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only Machester date currently is Manchester Pride, which is the date I added to the article. Fan4Life (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, I forgot, thank you. AnthonyFG (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for writing so much, can you remove the Raleigh show in 'Cancelled shows' since she does one date in November ? AnthonyFG (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original Raleigh show was cancelled, it wasn't rescheduled, this is a new show in the same place. Fan4Life (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, thanks. AnthonyFG (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry it's me again, someone changed the Edmonton show numbers. Could you change them, if you know them please ? AnthonyFG (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fan4Life (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriters order for Monopoly

Just wanted to direct you to a talk page discussion I started regarding the order of songwriters listed for "Monopoly". I saw we reverted each other edits, so I didn't want to engage in an another edit war. Hope we can reach a consensus.

Unrelated yet related, I wanted to let you know I appreciate your Ariana-related edits. You've put in a lot of work and devotion! Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What has given you a c ookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Wanted to add this cookie to show appreciate for your Ariana-related edits (despite our disputes regarding her)! I know a virtual cookie isn't much, but I hope it makes your day slightly better. I encourage that you keep editing.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

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. Thank you. N Ø 19:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your removal of "Don't Call Me Angel"

I think the best thing to do regarding your concerns is to propose "Don't Call Me Angel" for deletion, not PROD it. Please don't edit war over the removal of the entry just because the song's title is not 100% officially confirmed; it's been reported on as the title. Expunging all links to an article is not preferable over consensus determining an article does not meet our notability criteria and it being deleted. That's when removing the entry from all three discographies/all links elsewhere would be justifiable. Thanks. Ss112 01:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Ariana Grande songs have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. The Banner talk 16:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: It wasn't vandalism. There has to be a discussion and consensus has to be reached, if you think Template:Ariana Grande should be split then take it to the talk page. Fan4Life (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your info: there is a discussion about splitting the template. And per WP:BOLD someone else already performed the split. So it is now up to you to give arguments. Including why you restored a link to a disambiguation page. The Banner talk 07:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I don't oppose splitting it, I was just enforcing Wikipedia policy, splitting the template is a major change that has to be discussed first. Also, that discussion is 5 months old and consensus was never reached, it doesn't count, and per WP:BRD, a new discussion should've been started after I reverted and you shouldn't have made the edit again. Fan4Life (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: ). Thank you. livelikemusic talk! 16:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Fan4Life (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that how I acted was wrong and I already agreed to take a break from editing the relevant articles, so I don’t think this block is necessary. I know I have been involved in edit wars in the past, but I have also made many constructive contributions to Wikipedia, and if unblocked I will aim to improve my behaviour and avoid becoming involved in edit wars. Recently I’ve been trying to improve, I’ve started discussions and RfCs,[15][16] followed the WP:BRD cycle, and accepted outcomes that I disagreed with.[17] This was a slip up and a genuine mistake, one which I’m determined not to repeat. Fan4Life (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have an astonishingly extensive history of edit-warring, over a period of years. Your assurance that you will avoid making the same mistakes again carries little weight, as you have said that numerous times before, both in unblock requests and in edit-warring noticeboard discussions, and there is no reason to believe that on this occasion your word can be trusted more than on those occasions. You have been blocked for only a few of the occasions when you have edit-warred, and you seem to think that the fact that you have frequently got away with it means that what you did was fine, and you can carry on doing the same. (I'll go into that in more detail below.) You have been given the option of agreeing to keep off a problematic editing area for six months, and you have made it perfectly clear that you are not willing to even consider that. In view of those facts I see no reason at all to expect that unblocking you would result in your editing without continuing the same problems as before. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

At the edit warring noticeboard the idea of a topic ban was floated. Would you, as a condition for being unblocked, accept a topic ban from editing about Ariana Grande, broadly construed (including talk page edits), to be appealed no sooner than in six months? The problem with "this was a slip up" is that there were multiple similar slip ups in the recent past. Huon (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Huon: Their request for unblock seems similar to their past blocks; see examples here and here (which was made seven minutes following the decline of the previously-linked request). Surely unblocking them would only allow their behaviour to continue. This three-month block seems warranted, based on their actions. There was even question from another admin, back in 2017, that their continued mis-understanding of the rules is at the forefront — which ultimately caused the decline of his unblock request. This applies here. They claim, and I quote, "Recently I’ve been trying to improve," yet, surely this should've been happening since 2017. livelikemusic talk! 18:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I have been in conflict with him over some templates... The Banner talk 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Six months is excessive, why would I agree to a six month topic ban when the block is three months? That doesn't seem preventative to me. @Livelikemusic: My behaviour has clearly improved since 2017 as this is the first time I've been blocked in over two years. Also, in both of those appeals I tried to defend my conduct, I haven't done that this time, so they're not similar. @The Banner: I was only trying to enforce the Wikipedia policy of discussing changes, and that conflict ended because I started a discussion and RfC which resulted in consensus to split the template. Fan4Life (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template_talk:Ariana_Grande#Splitting_the_Template tells another story. The Banner talk 21:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could agree because you might be interested in editing Wikipedia beyond that one topic. And it's preventative because this one topic seems to be one where you run into trouble again and again; banning you from editing that topic thus is likely to prevent this trouble. Huon (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if you don't want a block or a topic ban, and just want to continue editing as you are. You claim your behaviour has improved, yet, it hasn't, as you've had reports made against you and are currently blocked. That does not equate to "clearly" improved behaviour. You also continue to stay that "XYZ" is "not preventative" whenever you're blocked. It seems like your continued defense. Maybe it's time you finally just accept this block, and then take it from there, because it seems that you still haven't fully understood the severity of your editing actions on Wikipedia. Your main focus is Ariana Grande and related articles, and the t-ban would immediately halt your editing, hence your hesitance to agree. You are a self-proclaimed "fan4life," which as well speaks to your editing patterns, and as a fan, you may not be able to sustain a neutral point of view on the subject. To return from multiple blocks to resume your behaviour—no matter the course of time—is problematic. You were reported three-times (that I can first-hand see) this year for edit-warring; with that in-mind, this block is seemingly justified. livelikemusic talk! 20:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I already edit beyond that one topic, but I don't think a six month topic ban is preventative when the block is three months. What if I'm unblocked on the condition that if I become involved in an edit war again in the next three months I get a six month topic ban? @Livelikemusic: None of the previous reports this year found there to have been any violation, so they aren't relevant and can't be used as justification. You're bringing up things from 2017 as if they're recent, and you can't say my behaviour hasn't improved when this is the first time that I've been blocked in over two years and the first time in over a year and a half that a report has found there to have been a violation. Fan4Life (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right now you're not editing at all. You are welcome to not accept my proposal, but I'm not going to bargain with you. Huon (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the previous reports this year found there to have been any violation, so they aren't relevant and can't be used as justification. Actually, they can. They were filed against you. Just because no action was taken, does not mean there wasn't an issue; they're still viable proof that you have a serious problem. You've had it for years and have continued to have it since your last block. livelikemusic talk! 19:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: I'm not asking to be unblocked without conditions, I know that's not an option. I'm willing to accept a shorter topic ban, I just don't think six months is necessary, I understand what I did wrong and all I want is a chance to prove that. @Livelikemusic: just because no action was taken, does not mean there wasn't an issue Each of the reports that got a response found there to have been no violation (other than one that was stale), it wasn't just a case of no action being taken, it was found each time that I hadn't violated policy, so actually they aren't viable proof, they aren't proof at all. Fan4Life (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a complete and absurd misrepresentation to say that in each case it was found that you "hadn't violated policy". In fact that is so far from the truth that you are either being disingenuous in saying so, or else you are so unable to understand what is said to you that it must be doubtful whether you have the competence to stop the problematic editing you have been doing. For example, in two of the cases that I have looked at no action was taken because you agreed not to continue with your edit-war, not because it was found that you hadn't been edit-warring. On two more of the cases that I have looked at you were warned to stop edit-warring, not told that you hadn't done so. Even in those cases which were closed with the words "no violation", it was in several cases clear from the closing statement that that wording was misleading. That was so, for example, in a case where the closing administrator stated that the reason for closing without action was that you had not edited the relevant page in the last 24 hours, not that you hadn't edit-warred before then, and another one where the administrator stated that you had not violated the 3-revert rule, not that you had not violated the policy on edit warring. And so it goes on... You have repeatedly edit-warred and got away with it by saying you won't do it again, or by stopping edit-warring long enough for a report on you to be closed, only to edit-war again later, or by other means, but the fact that you have repeatedly got away with edit-warring doesn't mean that you have not been edit-warring, or that for some reason we are not allowed to take that past edit-warring that you have got away with into consideration now. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 13:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: How is it "far from the truth" when that's what the conclusion was for each of the reports? Don't patronise or insult me, I fully understand. I haven't said that you can't take past violations into consideration, all I'm saying is that it's not fair to take violations from over two years ago into consideration but completely ignore the constructive edits and positive contributions that make up the majority of my editing history. Fan4Life (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to agree to my proposal, you are welcome to ping me and say so. If you don't agree to my proposal that's also OK; you can wait for another admin to review your request. There's no need to ping me aagin to tell me that you don't agree to it. As I said, I'm not going to bargain. Huon (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]