User talk:Easy4me

July 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Victorious (soundtrack), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Watch the Throne, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Alternative-song-stub}}[edit]

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha? 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to 2011 in American music. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 13:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Invitation to Join WikiProject Jennifer Lopez[edit]

You have been invited to join the Jennifer Lopez WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Jennifer Lopez. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You. ℥^nding·start 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A possible WikiProject Eminem[edit]

Hello. I'm proposing a WikiProject Eminem at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Eminem. Would you mind taking the time to vote there? Put your name in the Support section if you think he deserves one. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Watch the Throne, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Some of your edits, specifically to List of The Annoying Orange episodes with this edit, are disruptive. Please do not change the titles of the episodes incorrectly. e.g. the title of "Annoying Orange: Happy Birthday" is not "Annoying Orange: Happy Birthday, Orange!" Thank you for your participation. $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 03:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Easy4me. You have new messages at Talk:List of Mad episodes.
Message added Sarujo (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

September 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to The Lady Killer (album), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to 2011 in American music. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.-5- (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Rolling Papers (Wiz Khalifa album), as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Rolling Papers (Wiz Khalifa album), without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Clarity (song). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Spotlight (Gucci Mane song). Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Fed Up, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at NYC Ghosts & Flowers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Spidey665 | contribs | 14:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at We Found Love, you may be blocked from editing. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 01:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you create an inappropriate page, as you did at The One That Got Away (Katy Perry song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page Pumped Up Kicks appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Nowyouseemescreed 04:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Todos Juntos. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting your recent edit to Good Girl Gone Bad. Template:Infobox_album#Template:Singles → "Do not include singles that were added as bonus tracks on a re-release of an album." Dan56 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thank you for correcting the release dates of Beyonce's singles. ★Jivesh 1205★ (talk / ♫♫Give 4 a try!!!♫♫) 04:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparks Fly (song)[edit]

You cannot change the chart listing from 7 to 5 with a source saying it's 7. If you insist on changing it to 5 you must updated the source with a reliable source so it can be verifiable. Thank you JamesAlan1986 14:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. If it's possible just post the information on the talk page and I can get it. Okay? JamesAlan1986 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Sandman[edit]

Your changes to this article have been reverted. The content you removed was referenced, if you have some issue with this content or doubt the reference for some reason, please start a discussion on the article's talk page or at least give some indication why your are removing the material in the edit summary. Looking at your talk page, I see you've had many issues with making unreferenced and/or unexplained changes. If this continues you will be blocked.--RadioFan (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Navigation boxes[edit]

Hi. the purpose of navigational boxes is not to show an artist's complete discography, it is to be able to navigate between related articles. It is unnecessary to add items to an artist's navbox template that do not yet have articles, as you did here. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

I can understand, but, in future try to add sources. You don't have to hurry and update the charts, especially when you have to go to school :) Novice7 (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite sources while making edits like this. Novice7 (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. m.o.p 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houdini[edit]

Hi there! I just wanted to check in and hear what's going on in regards to the issue with the Foster the People single "Houdini" as (until recently) put in the infobox of Torches. You claim there's "no official source", when I had not one, nay two sources that it's available for purchase as a single. You claim it's a promo single. Where's the source for that? Just because it doesn't have a music video, doesn't mean it can't be an official single, no? Quite frankly I don't know what source that could be any better when there's several links to sources where you can actually buy the single. Isn't that the best kind of source?

The really funny thing is that you have no problem linking to "Helena Beat" and "Call It What You Want" in the infobox—both of which has music videos but no tangible place where you can actually buy the single, since it was only sent out as promo CDs. That screams promo single to me. What's going on here? Why are we treating these differently? Electricnet (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit has been reverted. I am very open to listen to your arguments for exclusion of "Houdini", but you have yet to respond to my message. Your edit seems a lot like an overreactive delete-and-run for a reason that (as it looks right now) has no real merit. Please refrain from removing the single from the article again without communicating. Thanks! Electricnet (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying words! It's always better to talk about this. I did see that source. It's clear to me that we have conflicting sources about this. However, it's not completely clear to me why you choose to favour this source, a side-note in one album review that doesn't give many more details about what it's claiming, over the sources I have where you can actually purchase the item in question. I tried to express this to you above, but you haven't yet responded to my specific points above. The Wikipedia article for promotional recording says that promo singles are only sent to broadcasters, tastemakers, journalists, etc., "they're never released in record stores." I have verbatim proof right here that this is a single in a record store. Granted, it's only for sale commercially as a digital download, but so are two other singles that have no problem being mentioned as official singles on the article. If we count this one out just based on that, we'd have to note "Helena Beat" and "Call It What You Want" as promo singles as well (which I believe they are). Electricnet (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If you want to use this definition, that's fair. But then we'd have to stop counting "Helena Beat" and "Call It What You Want" as official singles, too, as they were never purchasable. I'm fine with going with any definition, but then you have to be consistent. You can't claim a purchasable single to be a promo single while simultaneously claiming the two unpurchasable singles to not be promo singles. That just looks weird. Also, you seem to think that if a song has a music video, it's an official single. That's not the case; it's only an official single if I can buy it separately. There are countless examples of music videos that have only been otherwise released as promotional recordings (or haven't been released at all other than the video itself). And, when something says "it's a single" on Billboard.com, it doesn't actually specify whether it's an purchasable single. So for them, they could easily mean single as a shorthand for a promo single. Which is what I believe these two to be until I can purchase them. Electricnet (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Party (song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jivesh works hard on those Beyonce articles, and is the main contributor on them, he is hardly someone who is going to vandalize the article by changing it. The album version is a song that charted featuring Andre 3000, but the single versions has just been released and features J.Cole. That is why the article is set out how it is. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 12:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to Rated R (Rihanna album), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Massive Attack (song), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Just a Kiss. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at King (T.I. album), you may be blocked from editing. $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 23:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Speak Now, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Katy Perry discography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of A Weekend in November[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on A Weekend in November requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. reddogsix (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Thank You...[edit]

... for the corrections here. Don't you want to join her Wiki-project? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the Throne[edit]

Hi. Would you mind commenting at this discussion? An editor insists on removing "Lift Off" as a single from Watch the Throne. There's a page block on the article that depends on consensus. Dan56 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sleazy (Kesha song)[edit]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Sleazy (Kesha song), without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown[edit]

Hi, where did you get the release date for Charlie Brown (Coldplay song)? Thank you. Kenrick Talk 16:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to We Found Love. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to 4 Minutes (Madonna song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop 100[edit]

There is no need to remove Pop 100 information from an article simply because the chart no longer exists. It did exist at the time the songs were popular and these songs that you've removed this info from did chart on the Pop 100 and most of this info can be verified. If you want to challenge the validity of the info that's one thing, but to simply remove it because the chart is defunct is wrong. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You once again removed a valid source to a Pop 100 listing from an article, this time Bad Day (Daniel Powter song). Please do not remove Pop 100 information that can be properly verified. Please don't do it again. If you feel Pop 100 chart info should not be listed in a song's article, please discuss it at WT:CHARTS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source used - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/p702418/charts-awards/billboard-singles - and it shows that "Bad Day" was #1 on the Pop 100. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment?[edit]

Would you mind commenting to this post I opened? It's in reponse to an editor who removed an album's total sales because he felt it was outdated information. Dan56 (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste moves[edit]

Hi.

I just had to merge the histories of Tonight (I'm Fuckin' You) and Tonight (I'm Lovin' You) because—after nearly 7,000 edits here—you don't know how to properly request a page move. Copy-pasting content from one page to another is not the proper way to change an article's title, and as you did it without attribution, it wasn't even legal.

Next time, if you can't use the move button because there's old stuff in the way, request it at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

Are there any other copy-paste moves that you've performed that I need to clean up, too?

Sincerely yours, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you...[edit]

... please format your reference here? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see how theses references are here? That's what I meant. It's easy. You should learn doing that as it more presentable and nice to see rather than leaving bare urls. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What am I supposed to do there? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We use separate tables for separate years[edit]

Please stop making edits like this one to Headlines (Drake song). We use separate charts tables for album and song peaks to show what year they occurred in. Please see the guidance at WP:MUSIC/CHARTS. I have reverted a few of your edits already but please feel free to go back and undo your many, many edits to the Charts tables like this. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mislabelling the tables of chart peaks, as you did in this edit. It makes me have to undo it, as I did in this edit. I have pointed you to MOS:CHARTS once already; please read the part where it says we use separate tables depending on the year of the respective chart peaks. And for the case of "Mr. Wrong", there is absolutely no reason I can even guess at to change it from 2012 to 2011-12. Why would you do that? And (speaking of which) why not provide an edit summary with future edits to explain? Thanks, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012[edit]

Please stop with the incorrect changing of song artist credits in song articles and on the number-ones lists. They are credited as shown on the single covers and exactly as listed in Billboard. Your edits are disruptive and you have a Talk Page full of warnings. If you continue to disrupt articles while ignoring talk page communication, you will face a block of editing privelidges. - eo (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come Help Edit![edit]

I'd be happy if you'd contribute more to the Lego Ninjago: The Series article. Your original help was great, thanks. I posted some suggestions on the discussion page as well.

If you want you can watch more episodes of the series on youtube. I believe a user named XmasToys has several uploaded.

Mike44456 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chart tables[edit]

In your edit here on the Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites article, you changed the column header for charts from "2011" to "2011-12". Note that per MOS:CHARTS, "albums and singles which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year(s) in a separate table below the earlier table." I fixed it for you, but be sure you do it correctly in the future. I see you've been warned about this before. Also, you changed the chart position for the album's peak on the Billboard 200 from 51 to 49, but you did not update the source. You shouldn't change sourced information without checking and updating the reference as well. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the Pop 100 from chart tables and try to add sources when you change or add things to them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Detox_(Dr._Dre_album). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Unless you have a WP:V source, please do not add a release year to the album. If you do have a source, please consider editing the article with a confirmed release date and add the source. Thanks! ChadH (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) ChadH (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for chart positions[edit]

When changing chart peaks on articles such as 4 AM (Melanie Fiona song), please update the sources. If there are no sources, please consider adding them. You are obviously getting your information from somewhere, why not cite it using {{cite web}} or other appropriate citation template? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When changing chart peaks on articles such as Charlie Brown (Coldplay song), please update the sources. If there are no sources, please consider adding them. If you do not do so in the future, I will start reverting all your changes to chart positions. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it again. On the article for the song, "Starships", you changed the chart peak for Mainstream Top 40 from 31 to 24 without updating the source (see your edit here). Why is this so hard for you to do?

Even when the source is valid, you need to update the "access date" on the citation, such as on the article for the song, "Don't Stop (Color on the Walls)". You changed the chart position for Rock Songs from 14 to 11 (see your edit here), but the citation for it says this:

<ref name="Billboard">{{cite web|url=http://www.billboard.com/#/artist/foster-the-people/chart-history/1530525|title=Foster the People Album & Song Chart History|work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]|publisher=[[Prometheus Global Media]]|accessdate=January 7, 2012}}</ref>

Note the access date of January 7, 2011. When you update the information, even though the URL is the same, you should update the date with when you accessed it? If it moved up the chart in March, I doubt that the info was accessed in January. You seem like you know what you're doing, so why not try to do a better job? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Sleazy (Kesha song), you may be blocked from editing. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Easy4me. You have new messages at (CK)Lakeshade's talk page.
Message added 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

Update sources!![edit]

I have reverted your updates to chart positions in the article, A Thousand Years (Christina Perri song), because you failed to update the sources for the changes, thereby the information cannot be corroborated by the given citation. If you continue to fail to do so, I will ask an admin to take further action. Also, please be wary of the chart highlight updates that Billboard provides, such as http://www.billboard.com/column/chartbeat#/column/chartbeat/chart-highlights-lady-antebellum-plants-1006039352.story. They usually go dead after about a week when a new update is released. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Payphone (song). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ricochet Jones^talk 20:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Sweet Love (Chris Brown song). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Oz ^talk 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi Easy, nice to meet you. I ran across some of your edits today and saw that almost none of them had edit summaries. Those are mighty helpful those looking through edit histories or lists of edits to see what exactly an editor is doing. Please consider using them more often. Thanks, and happy editing, Airplaneman ✈ 03:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lights (Ellie Goulding song)[edit]

Please stop changing "Canadian Hot 100" to "Canada (Canadian Hot 100)" without providing a valid reason for such. Thank you. Snap Snap 21:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Birthday Cake (song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Stop removing those charts. They are allowed to be there. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Kesha discography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop changing charts around with no reason whatsoever, like you did to Gwen Stefani articles. Snap Snap 00:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012[edit]

Katy Perry[edit]

You have been invited to join the Katy Perry WikiProject, a WikiProject on the English Wikipedia dedicated to improving articles and lists related to Katy Perry. If you are interested in joining, please visit the project page and add your name to the list of participants. Thank You.

teman13 (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Katy Perry discography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, stop changing charts around in Gwen Stefani single articles. According to WP:CHARTS, the Pop Songs and Adult Pop Songs charts can only be added if the song has not charted on the Pop 100, and all those songs have indeed charted on the Pop 100. Snap Snap 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium (song)[edit]

All charts are arranged in alphabetical order (see MOS:CHARTS). If you continue moving up the Pop Songs chart after I've explained this to you many times in the edit summaries, you will be reported and possibly blocked from editing. Oz ^talk 20:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no single cover for eyes open[edit]

Source: TaylorSwift.com. Taylor Swift has yet to release a cover for her single eyes open so to keep placing a FAN MADE cover on there is not right for ANYONE to do. Taylor Swifts past single Sparks Fly's cover was the advertisement and IF she releases a cover for eyes open then it will involve the advertisement on her site not some fan made crap cover that is OBVIOUSLY a FAN cover. Look up Taylor Swift Eyes Open on google image search and yahoo image search and several fan made covers including the one that is being posted on the page is in several sites but none are in anyway taylor or big machine records, etc. officially saying this is the cover and until they due wikipedia is posting a FAN MADE COVER! good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.68.32 (talk) 04:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012[edit]

File:ColdAlternateCover.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ColdAlternateCover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:ColdAlternateCover.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ColdAlternateCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012[edit]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Fight for You, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Oz ^talk 11:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Turn Up the Music (song), you may be blocked from editing. Oz ^talk 03:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for 8701[edit]

Hello, please go here if you would like to participate in the merging discussion. Thankyou. Rayman⁹⁵ ^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

Kelly Rowland discography Intro[edit]

Number of single is 30 (with the new single Ice), and not 29. Please change.--Music&Co (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Looking4Myself.PNG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Looking4Myself.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please stop removing info from this article. There is a reason why the specific remix is mentioned, and I explained it in my edit summary.
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - eo (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lights (Ellie Goulding song)[edit]

For the gazillionth time, read WP:CHARTS before adding any charts, it clearly states that if a song has not charted on the Rock Songs, the Alternative Songs may be added. "Lights", however, did chart on the Rock Songs, therefore the Alternative Songs is not supposed to be added. This is not the first you have chosen to ignore this particular guideline. Snap Snap 17:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China Anne McClain "Dynamite" single cover[edit]

Why did you remove the the official single cover 4 China's Anne MacClain version of "Dynamite". you need 2 put it back. Dbunkley6 (talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Death Pop! cover[edit]

Say, I noticed that you found a better version of that cover from iTunes. I was just wondering: is there also covers for the bonus albums found in The Mighty Death Pop!? Specifically, covers for Smothered, Covered & Chunked, Freaky Tales, and Mike E. Clark's Extra Pop Emporium? Thanks. - 72.223.31.151 (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Input please?[edit]

Taylor Swift discography#Can we get a consensus please? ^_^ Swifty*^talk 23:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Easy4me. You have new messages at Talk:Taylor Swift discography.
Message added 23:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

^_^ Swifty*^talk 23:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough of No Love" Editing[edit]

Hello. Recently, I've noticed that you may have removed data from the article Enough of No Love including chart data. Please leave this alone. Thank you. Manuel Mexico (talk) 15:45, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

==September 2012

Rose Colored Glasses (Kelly Rowland Song)[edit]

The Mainstream Top 40 chart listed here is a component of the Billboard Mainstream Top 40. It is produced by MediaBase who are one of the monitoring stations along with Neilsen SoundScan. The latter (the official chart provide) has an extensive wider-range of stations under its remit. MediaBase only monitor a small subset of mainstream stations thus making it a subset/component of the mainstream top 40 pop songs chart. At the time of GA review it was allowed and i did discuss it with others. It was permitted. Please stop removing it. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued failure to update sources[edit]

You've been warned about this before (see above), but you continue to make changes to articles without updating the source. See your edit here. You need to confirm that the source says what you are changing it to, and you also need to change the access date within the template. If you fail to do either, your edits will be reverted. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are still doing it. Please do not update chart positions without verifying the source says the same thing. Note that verifibility is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia and you are willfully ignoring it. That cannot be tolerated. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter V[edit]

Both Chapter V (Trey Songz album) and Dive In (Trey Songz song) need sources to verify that the latter was released as a single. The singles template in the former article is based on content cited in the article, and Dive In is not verified as a single. Wikipedia articles are not sources. Dan56 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012[edit]

50 Cent's new single[edit]

Yo bro, "First Date" isn't confirmed as the second single of Street King Immortal. I know all the websites are flooding around saying it is, but 50 Cent hasn't debuted the official second single yet. "First Date" is just an throwaway track and might won't be on the album. SrGangsta (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, check the promotional singles category for more info. 50 Cent also confirmed on his Twitter that the record won't get plays on radio and won't get charted. Check the tweet. SrGangsta (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source: 50 Cent's official website. http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/50-cent-first-date-feat-too-short-radio-rip-ti50

"50 Cent releases a new song off of his upcoming album Street King Immortal."

Chart positions[edit]

Can you please learn how to source properly using the {{cite web}} template? It's preferred over full urls. Also, do not added a source when the {{singlechart}} template is already in use. If you're going to add in a source when the template is already being used, you're introducing conflicting information. Use one or the other, never both. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style[edit]

~~Please do not write deliberately deceptive edit summaries, as you did here. It's logical to conclude that it was deliberate, because you had removed the Billboard Latin Songs chart before.~~--Moscow Connection (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it wasn't deliberate, then! No problem! Sorry. I, too, find it weird that the Korean song is on a Latin chart. Anyway, the info is encyclopedic, so it should be included. I don't know how Billboard calculates its charts, but, for example, it's possible that the song is being rotated on Latin radio stations. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Call Me Maybe, you may be blocked from editing. Rvir0522 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Disco is actually sourced in the Composition and Critical reception sections, so this warning was not fair or needed. AARON• ^TALK 01:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to I Knew You Were Trouble, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Promise (Soulja Boy album)[edit]

The article Promise (Soulja Boy album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:HAMMER, WP:NAlbums, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. as usual, release date or singles nowhere in site. Most of article either false, unsourced or verified very poorly. Seems obvious, but I'll see what you think.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stadium (album)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stadium (album), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Stadium (album) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stadium (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stadium (album) 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. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Do not update chart positions without updating sources[edit]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop updating chart positions without updating the sources. Why can't you figure that out? In the article, Thrift Shop (song), twice you updated the peak for the Mainstream Top 40 chart (here on December 28 and here on January 4). The referenced sources has not been changed and still says 36. Please learn how to properly include/update citations or do not update articles at all. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're at it again. With your edits here and here to Next to Me (Emeli Sandé song), you made changes to chart positions without updating the sources. Why do you refuse to perform this very simple task. You're the one who added these to charts to the list in the first place, so if you're going to update the positions, please take the responsibility of updating the sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thrift Shop's genre[edit]

Serious question: why do you keep tagging it as comedy hip hop? It isn't. It's alternative hip hop. Just because a song has funny lines in it, that doesn't make it comedy. And don't say it's because it's his only breakout hit or anything like that, because Macklemore got a lot of attention for "Same Love", which is very much not comedy. Drjayphd (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did here at Harlem Shake (song), you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page, you should know better. Discuss or cite, otherwise refrain, please. Dan56 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia, like you did here at Harlem Shake (song) as 76.111.139.137. Such attempts to avoid detection in making disruptive edits, or circumvent the blocking policy will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dan56 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which source would you be referring to? This one, which clearly lists "hip hop, bass"? If you dont want to be mistaken for a vandal, cite a source for your changes to articles and use edit summaries, which by now you should be familiar with. Snotty comments like these dont exactly show much appreciation for the fact that I cleaned up a stub article. Dan56 (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop 100[edit]

Please don't remove the Pop 100 from articles that list the chart in its Charts section. You asked about this in 2011 at WT:CHARTS and the idea was rejected. Please don't try to start up this practice of yours again. From 2005–2009, the Pop 100 was the principal pop chart for Billboard and shouldn't just be removed from articles for songs that did make that chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cite web[edit]

I recommend the use of {{cite web}} when adding sources to articles. It's much cleaner and understandable and avoids link rot, should the URL change in the future. Instead of the reference looking like this:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/1542339/chart-highlights-pnk-ties-katy-perry-for-most-adult-pop-songs-no

You should use the cite web template and enter this:

{{cite web |url=http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/1542339/chart-highlights-pnk-ties-katy-perry-for-most-adult-pop-songs-no |title=Chart Highlights: P!nk Ties Katy Perry For Most Adult Pop Songs No. 1s |last=Trust |first=Gary |date=February 18, 2013 |work=[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]] |accessdate=February 19, 2013}}

It will then look like this under the list of references:

Trust, Gary (February 18, 2013). "Chart Highlights: P!nk Ties Katy Perry For Most Adult Pop Songs No. 1s". Billboard. Retrieved February 19, 2013. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

If you can do that, it will make your work look a lot better. And just another reminder, that you should never update a chart position without updating the source or checking the source that is there. Happy editing. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undid your edit to When I Was Your Man because you did not provide an updated source to verify the updated chart position. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I undid your edit to Just Give Me a Reason because, while you did provide a source by using the {{singlechart}} template, the source did not confirm the position you noted. Be sure when you use singlechart that the source actually verifies the chart position; otherwise, it can be removed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To give you a compliment for a change, good job on updating the Hot 100 peak and source for Feel This Moment. While individual Hot 100 charts are not always a good source because they can't confirm a peak position except for No. 1, you correctly updated the link so it went to the right page and updated the access date. One thing is that the Billboard date should be March 2, not February 21, since that is the issue date of the chart you are referencing, but this is how you should be updating citations all the time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continued disruption[edit]

Do not use discography sections for an artist as reliable information to change an article's information. For If This Is It, you changed its peak position on the rock chart from 19 to 3. This is incorrect and I reverted it back (also changing Huey Lewis and the News discography). If there is a discrepency between the two, please do some research and find a reliable source that confirms the correct position. If you are unsure which one is right, you shouldn't touch anything.
Please don't combine charts from different years as you did in I Know What I Like. Per MOS:CHARTS, "Albums and singles which peak on different charts during different years are formatted with the charts for the more recent year(s) in a separate table below the earlier table."
There is no need to change chart names with an article that display the correct chart name at the time. For example, the Mainstream Rock Tracks chart was previously called "Album Rock Tracks" and Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs was once called "Hot Black Singles", not to mention all the changes Billboard made to its .com website in 2009, even though the official chart names have never changed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

Some Nights[edit]

So in this edit, you changed the AC chart position for 11 to 7, yet you obviously failed to check the source, because it gives a peak of 17. I'm sure you are correct because the new Billboard sites fails to update it seems, but you CANNOT allow information provided by the source to conflict with the info you put into the article. I don't know why you refuse to confirm sources when you change things because so often it cannot be verified. Please do a better job. How many times do I have to ask you? It's not that hard. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Like a Lawyer with the Way I'm Always Trying to Get You Off (Me & You)[edit]

Hello, I'm Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to I'm Like a Lawyer with the Way I'm Always Trying to Get You Off (Me & You) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! You once again removed Pop 100 information from an article, when you have been asked not to. This is now an official warning to stop your disruptive behavior. You can see here that this song reached #31 on the Pop 100 chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary?[edit]

As with this edit on March 6, your most recent changes to Harlem Shake (song) were reverted. I don't know if you are familiar with the "view history" tab, but you might have seen that when I reverted your older edit to the article here, I did so with an explanation. It would be courteous if you had done the same with your recent edit, which again disorganized the charts that were ordered alphabetically and linked "Billboard" more times than needed; WP:OVERLINK suggests to link only on first reference. If there is some stylistic guideline for these charts that I am missing, please inform me of it. Otherwise, please do not reintroduce those changes to the article. And use an edit summary if you make edits that are challengable. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 13:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body Party[edit]

I noticed you purposely changed the chart position for that article to a higher number even though the article was correct initially and the link clearly states the correct chart position. Vandalism? Suit&tie (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions[edit]

Can you add a source instead of being lazy and just changing it without please. — AARON • ^TALK 10:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Highway Don't Care, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? Billboard doesn't list K.U. at all. We go by what Billboard says. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

One More Time[edit]

In this edit, you added peak chart positions for Germany and Sweden, but you it appears you just copied singlechart template from another line because the "access date" on these new entries are still May 22, 2012. You may also want to check the source for the German chart, because when I linked on it, it says it peaked at 10 not 7. You should always verify sources you add and include proper sources. Be careful about just copying and pasting information without double checking everything. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even check the sources that you add? When you added the German chart position for Around the World, the source provided links here, yet it doesn't show anything so cannot confirm your claim. If the singlechart template doesn't properly verify a source, find a correct source and use the {{cite web}} template instead. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Almost (song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. This is your second warning for removing a legitimate chart (the Pop 100) from articles. I have re-inserted the information and added proper sources to each included the ones you added and failed to do so yourself. I don't understand your constant refusal to include sources when you add or change information with your edits. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lost Without U, you may be blocked from editing. How many warnings will it take you to stop removing the Pop 100 from chart tables in song articles? In your edit here in the article for Lost Without You, you removed it once again when I have asked you repeatedly not to. On top of that, you replaced it with charts without adding references for those positions (AGAIN). I have re-added the Pop 100 chart, which was the primary pop chart in Billboard magazine from the beginning of 2005 through mid-2009, and included the sources for all the Billboard charts listed. Because this is now the third time I have warned you about this, if you remove the Pop 100 from any song article (unless the information is just plain wrong), I will ask that you be blocked. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Come & Get It (song), you may be blocked from editing. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genres[edit]

Kelly Calling the song "dance and mashup" doesn't make the song of that genre. The critic's opinion does. "Motivation" is obviously not a dance song. Also genres should appear in alphabetical order. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop changing genres. Anything in the infobox should appear in alphabetical order as this is the standard practice for searching and indexing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 10:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs[edit]

Please read Wikipedia:Bare URLs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

A favour[edit]

Hello, would you mind commenting on my FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs written by Emeli Sandé/archive1, as progress has completely stalled and hasn't been very active recently. Thanks. — AARON • ^TALK 22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Devotion (Jessie Ware album)‎. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. - eo (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Collide[edit]

You're unhelpful edits to "Collide", "Trouble" etc regarding the Hurt: EP have been removed. "Hurt: EP" charted on the singles chart therefore it is required to be included in the singles chronology. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Consensus for whether List of Nintendo 3DS games should be split into 2 pages[edit]

Hello, you're invited to vote and express your views about this on the discussion topic. Jotamide Jotamide (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014[edit]

Chart positions[edit]

Don't forget to change the access date in the single chart template when you update the chart positions of songs as you forgot to do here. You have promise, I just wish you'd be more careful. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed content[edit]

Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you recently removed some content from All of Me (John Legend song) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! STATic message me! 02:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Show Me (Kid Ink song), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. STATic message me! 02:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Up Down (Do This All Day), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. STATic message me! 02:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Paranoid (Ty Dolla Sign song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STATic message me! 02:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Do What U Want, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. You have repeatedly received messages about problems with your editing, but you never make any changes to the way you edit, nor even respond to the messages. In particular, with respect to the most recent messages on this page, if you think there are good reasons for removing content from an article, then you need to explain those reasons. Removing content without explanation is in itself undesirable, but when you have repeatedly been asked not to do so, and you still continue in the same way, it becomes unacceptable. Considering the number of messages expressing concern with your editing, the time period over which they have been spread, and your own practice of completely ignoring them, the length of this block is minimal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give LEGO The Hobbit Video Game a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me this. I didn't know that I needed to do this when moving a page. Also, I can't move a page even though I've had this account for years. I will look at this information. Lastly, could you please help me find more info for the Lego The Hobbit page? Easy4me (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Austin Mahone (EP), without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. STATic message me! 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Ty Dolla Sign, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. STATic message me! 23:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at Part II (On the Run), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. STATic message me! 01:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 Months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014[edit]

US Charts[edit]

Re this edit: please do not add the Alternative Songs chart to articles where the Hot Rock Songs is listed, as Alternative Songs is part of Hot Rock Songs. See WP:USCHARTS for more information. Adabow (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. IPadPerson (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Into the Storm (2014 film)[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Into the Storm (2014 film), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. STATic message me! 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rover[edit]

Hi, box office mojo has not updated their Foreign total of The Rover (2014 film) which is as shown here $401,693 (from Australia)+ $23,067 (from Belgium)+ $34,959 (from Brazil)+ $204,750 (from France)+ $58,936 (from Malaysia)+ $33,951 (from Philippines)+ $15,693(From Thailand)+ $41,564 (From Turkey) which on total becomes $814,613 instead of $761,000 and when added $1,109,199 of Domestic box office, the worldwide gross become 1,923,812 instead of $1,870,199. The problems in values are occurring because they have not updated their foreign total $761,000 last updated on 7/13/14 and as you can see in the list that recent entries like from Thailand are added on 8/3/14, Brazil are added from 8/10/14 which are showing in the Foreign box office list but has not been added in total yet. I hope this clear up everything regarding the box-office total in the article. Sometimes box Office mojo takes months to update the proper figures despite showing them in the list.--Jockzain (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rounding primer[edit]

Hi, I've noticed that you've twice made rounding mistakes, here and here. This is somewhat problematic, but I'll give you a quick primer, although it is something that people typically learn in grade school. In your first edit, you rounded 148,269,096 to 148.2 million. If we are rounding to the nearest 100,000 we would look at the number that follows the 2 in 148,269,096. If that number is 5 or greater, we round up to 3. If it is less than 5, we round down to 2. So in this case: $148,269,096 is rounded UP to $148.3 million. In this edit you raised the global gross to $148.4 million, but the number at BoxOfficeMojo was $148,495,780. Again, if we are rounding to the nearest 100,000 we look at the number that follows the second 4. So in this case: $148,495,780 is rounded UP to $148.5 million. I hope this helps. Your efforts are appreciated, but please double-check your math, as future mistakes may be considered counter-productive. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, even if it is very brief, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Soulja Boy's fourth studio album listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Soulja Boy's fourth studio album. Since you had some involvement with the Soulja Boy's fourth studio album redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Lazy Bastard Guy 18:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in film[edit]

hi thank you for your additions on the page but please if your gonna add films to the page please add a reliable source with it otherwise they will be removed thank you. Redsky89 (talk) 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

Island of Lemurs: Madagascar[edit]

When you update the total figure in the infobox, also update the rounded figure in the "box office" section (two decimal places will suffice). Thank you '''tAD''' (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Nothing (The Script song)[edit]

Greetings from Amsterdam. I made the page on the dutch Wikipedia and saw an error in chartsfigures. In Flanders as well in Wallonia Nothing did not make it to the charts. The places (26, 26) named on Ultratop are from the tipparade (a sort of bubbling under). Ceescamel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.39.13 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

3D in the lead[edit]

Would you please not add 3D as a genre to film leads for films that were not shot in 3D? If it's in the lead it gives the impression it was shot in that format. Simply having a 3D release is all too common and does not belong in the opening sentence. It's usually mentioned in the Release section. - Gothicfilm (talk)

February 2015[edit]

Metacritic wording[edit]

Stop edit warring on the wording around the Metacritic summary: there is no need to use a direct quote, especially if we can re-phrase something so banal. - SchroCat (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And STOP changing it to American spelling. The article is is BrEng, so "favourable" is the correct word to use. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

In a recent edit to the page Louis Tomlinson, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 7 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of best-selling Nintendo 3DS video games page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Nitro Circus: The Movie page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Dear Easy4me,

I really don't know who you are. Man or woman, boy or girl. But although you change box office total of The Longest Ride, I think your change is not accurate. I change it based on the current website. And you should change the plot of the movie and the summary box office total description of title "Box Office" at "Reception", not the gross on the right side of Wikipedia's page. Because I am from Indonesia and The Longest Ride is not released in Indonesia, I don't know that plot.

I think it's not funny if my name is always there on editing movie pages, especially box office totals on Sunday. Sorry if I write this letter on your profile.

Thanks.

IreneTandry (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notebook: I am a woman, not man.

Removing reliable sources[edit]

Please do not remove sourced content, as you did in this edit. Removing a reliable source without giving any reason is commonly known as blanking, and it is disruptive. The Numbers is commonly used for box office gross estimations, and it should not be removed in favor of Box Office Mojo when the numbers differ. Instead, both values should be reported in order to avoid giving undue weight to one estimate. If you have issues with this, you can bring them up at WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Movie edits[edit]

Hey man. I always see you editing movie pages, especially box office totals on Sunday. Just think it's funny how either your or my name is always there. You and I run these movie editing streets haha (that was lame af...) ok. That's it. User:tropicAces (talk) 6:35, June 10, 2015 (EST)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Seventy-Nine (film) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Seventy-Nine (film). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Ingenz213 (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at High Tension, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Not clear why you replaced a sourced number with an unsourced one. Providing an edit summary would have been helpful. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pixels reviews[edit]

Haha damn it, man, I just spent 10 minutes collecting all the Pixels data and links and formats on my phone and hit send to find out you jut did it seconds earlier. Oh well. Got my thumb a workout... TropicAces (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sorry about that. Man, can you believe how pathetic the reviews are for Pixels? They're almost as bad as Jack and Jill! I kinda doubt that it's that bad but then again, critics tend to have a bias against Adam Sandler. :P Easy4me (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"QX 201X" vs "201X QX" on the List of Wii U software[edit]

The other day, you changed the format of some of the release windows to QX 201X. I think it should stay as 201X QX because that way they're chronologically sortable. What do you think? I would appreciate if you could reply here. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Wii U software, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natsume. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please add sources[edit]

Hi E, I don't mean to get on your case, but you need to add references for content like this. At the very least, slap a URL between <ref></ref> tags. The strength of Wikipedia is in its references, and unsourced additions will be reverted. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response summaries[edit]

Hi there, if you're going to add critical response summaries you should be aware of what MOS:FILM has to say about them, and you should be poised to discuss, not just silently reinstate. It's ridiculous to make proclamations about critical response when films don't even have sufficient numbers of reviews, or sufficient coverage from both aggregators. I know that your "thing" is to come by and update box values on a daily basis, but some things (like critical response) should be allowed to stabilize before we start making proclamations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding MOS guidelines[edit]

Hi I've been noticing some film production sections are getting really unweildy and I thought you might enjoy contributing to my discussion about brainstorming updates to the MOS:Film to address these. The discussion is located here --Deathawk (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced budgets[edit]

Please do not add unsourced budgets to film articles, especially you use the IMDB as a reference. The IMDB is user generated and thus not a reliable source. The budgets are frequently made up or guessed at by users. You can sometimes find budgets listed at Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, and the Los Angeles Times. If you use these sources, please cite your source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Martian[edit]

Please refrain from restoring the simplistic language of just saying that the film has a score of 93%. Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website that only evaluates reviews as positive or negative, so there is no middle ground. Metacritic is the more suitable aggregator to lead with because it can categorize a review as mixed, and the main score it provides is like Rotten Tomatoes's more tucked-away average review score. These are commercial websites whose details we need to leverage carefully for encyclopedic value. This means we need to clearly explain what these scores are. Many articles do take this simplistic approach, but this does not mean we should not improve on it. MOS:FILM#Critical response supports this, "Review aggregation websites such as Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic are citable for statistics pertaining to the ratio of positive to negative reviews." The more detailed language allows us to report the statistics of the distribution of reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Shut In poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shut In poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jem has received mixed reviews[edit]

Hi, how did you arrive at the statement "Jem and the Holograms has received mixed reviews from critics" in this edit? Rotten Tomatoes thus far has them at 22%, which seems awfully low for "mixed" even if Rotten Tomatoes were to have a "middle-of-the-ground" rating instead of pass-fail. Metacritic doesn't seem to be in agreement with RT on this. If it's something you pulled out of whole cloth, which it looks like to me, please stop doing that. Personal evaluations of critical response are of no value to the project. I've explained this to you before. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, infoboxes, and MOS:FILM[edit]

In this edit you changed sourced text to values not found in the source. I don't know, but maybe you were using Box Office Mojo's data for this film when you changed the gross. If that's the case, then what you need to do is to add the data as a range. For example: "$2–2.1 million<ref>The Numbers ref</ref><ref>Box Office Mojo ref</ref>". You can't just erase a value reported by a reliable source and replace it with unsourced values from somewhere else. Unrelated to this, you also removed the "(US)" bit in the gross. The reason why I bring this up is because we use this to identify when the gross is worldwide (no identifier for territory) or regional (when a region is put in parenthesis). You can read more about this at MOS:FILM. In the future, please don't remove "(US)" when you see it included. This would give readers the impression that this is the worldwide gross, which, for this film, it isn't. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Callmemirela. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dirty Grandpa, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dirty Grandpa, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Please see WP:CITEIMDB. IMDB is an unreliable source for almost everything. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The 5th Wave poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The 5th Wave poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More unsourced budgets[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced budgets to films. Was I unclear about something the last time I brought this up? I tried to give you some pointers about where to find sources. If you're still having problems or issues, you can bring up at a number of places: WikiProject Film, the help desk, the tea house. If you don't understand when to cite sources, then please read WP:V and WP:CITE. If you don't understand how to identify reliable sources, read WP:RS. Not sure what else to say here, and your lack of communication makes this frustrating. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Callmemirela. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dirty Grandpa, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Zoolander No. 2. You've been around long enough and warned often enough. You need to provide reliable source and/or discuss the issue. Since you seem to not want to discuss anything with anyone, I guess you'll simply have to provide sources. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piglet's Big Movie[edit]

Hi there, could you please source this budget addition? I've removed it, but if you have the ref, please go nuts. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Miracles from Heaven poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Miracles from Heaven poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dirty Grandpa. This is your last warning. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 08:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Dirty Grandpa. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-ANI warning[edit]

Easy4Me, this is your last warning before I report you to ANI. You have been sufficiently warned about adding unsourced content and editing disruptively. With 40K edits and 5 years of experience, you should know better. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT THE CHOICE MOVIE[edit]

If you want to edit total gross or box office of The Choice, you will not only edit total gross in the right box of the page, but also edit its content about total gross. Thanks.

IreneTandry (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol (film) box office[edit]

Hello! I've noticed that you stay on top of updating the box office gross for the Carol infobox template. Just want to make sure you become aware that the financial source has been changed to The Numbers from Box Office Mojo. I posted about the $2mm+ discrepancy between what was reported by BOM vs. TN earlier this week: Talk:Carol (film)#Box Office Mojo vs. The Numbers. Ciao! Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregate scores[edit]

Regarding Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, we editors have to remember that these are commercial websites that we are only leveraging for encyclopedic value. Per WP:PROMO, we should not showcase the scores as if Wikipedia is a place for readers to decide about going to see a movie. The long view is required, and this means using the pertinent details from these websites, the number of critics and how they break down. This allows explaining the methodology (especially Rotten Tomatoes's extremely commercial approach of merely positive or negative) and stating the scores based on how they assessed the reviews and the number of them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film posters[edit]

You've been replacing a lot of posters unnecessarily and with no edit summary recently. Not doing anyone any favors. Cheers. — Film Fan 14:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're still doing it. Stop it. — Film Fan 20:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eddie the Eagle poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eddie the Eagle poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

88th academy awards[edit]

Hi, I'm one of the editors of the current Oscars and I noticed that someone put Barack Obama and Morgan Freeman as presenters although they were never announced. Change you it.107.72.96.239 (talk) 04:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reliable sources without explanation[edit]

It looks like I might have been a bit too quick to revert one of your edits. The problem was that you removed a reliable source without explaining why in the edit summary. I'm still not entirely sure why you removed it, but I'm guessing it's because the box office gross numbers, which were initially divergent, have become much closer together. However, it's impossible to know your reasons for sure, because your edit summary is simply "updated gross". In the future, it would be helpful if you explicitly stated why you're removing a reliable source from an article. Or, even better yet, don't do it in the first place. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21ST EMPIRE AWARDS[edit]

Can you make new page about 21st Empire Awards?

IreneTandry (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Now You See Me 2 poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Now You See Me 2 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Beauty and the Beast 2017 poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Beauty and the Beast 2017 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dangerous (Michael Jackson album). Rob van vee 07:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:13 Hours poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:13 Hours poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussants needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4[edit]

Since you are among the editors who made at least 10 edits to "Blurred Lines", I was hoping you might take the time to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More disruption[edit]

Please stop removing "(US)" from the box office gross in {{infobox film}}. This is used to identify that the listed gross is for the US only, not the worldwide gross. I have already asked you stop doing this. Some of your behavior is really getting to be quite disruptive: removing sources without explanation, adding budgets without a source, and stripping out information from the infobox. If you continue on this path, you may end up blocked. I see that you have already received a level 4 warning for disruptive editing in the past. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And in this edit you added yet another unsourced budget. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy4me, this comment is about as weaksauce as it gets. Have you never seen the many articles with unsourced budgets, even though they can be found on either IMDb, Box Office Mojo, or The Numbers? The fact that other editors do a shitty job of referencing doesn't mean that you are free to do the same substandard job. The minimum standard is "add a reference" and you're basically arguing that you should be held to a standard less than the minimum. That is not a dignified position to take. You're clearly smart enough, you're clearly focused, you clearly possess a drive to go from article to article to make these changes--how much harder is it to remember to add a reference? Please, don't add/change disputable content without adding/updating the reference. Otherwise you'll put me in the distasteful position of having to suspend your editing privileges until you understand that the community relies on you to support data with references. This is an entirely avoidable problem. If editing burn-out is causing you to cut corners, you can always take a break--the encyclopedia will survive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for the constructive criticism. It's nice to know that not everyone acts like a dick when trying to correct someone on the internet. Easy4me (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent introduction of unsourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had an understanding that you were not to add unsourced content again, so this edit, where you add an unsourced budget yet again, confuses me. I'm also not clear why you marked it as minor. Minor edits comprise cosmetic changes like typo fixes, adding punctuation, adding wikilinks, and so on. Please see WP:MINOR. Additionally, in this edit you've inexplicably decided that the-numbers.com isn't sufficient as a reliable source, or so I surmise, since you didn't include an edit summary. You should ask WikiProject Film what their preference is for dealing with content like this, but my instinct would be to present both figures as a range, rather than deciding that one source is better than the other. That, however, is something you can think about for the duration of your block. Note that you are free to request an unblock before the week expires, but you're going to have to demonstrate that you understand why you were blocked and provide some assurance that you won't continue the behavior if you are unblocked. This sort of editing can be really frustrating and annoying to other editors, and that's not fair to them. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Negotiator page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Daddy's Home (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 02:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Eraserhead. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 31 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Yes, Giorgio page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey[edit]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Desierto[edit]

Hi. Please read WP:MOSFILM and the guidance on the infobox (esp. the release dates). As this film is not an American film, we don't include the American release dates (WP:FILMRELEASE). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2016 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Davis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E3 2016 Needs Refs[edit]

@Easy4me: Thank you for "live editing" the E3 2016 page during the PlayStation Press Conference. This is just a friendly reminder to, when you're done, please add references where appropriate. This will keep your edits from getting reverted for unsourced content. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will add references once they are added after Sony's presentation. Don't worry. Easy4me (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. I was just reminding you. I'd hate to see all your work go to waste. -- Gestrid (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. You seriously need to get into the habit of including citations to reliable sources when adding content. Please stop ignoring the many warnings you've been given about this before. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:When the Bough Breaks 2016 poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:When the Bough Breaks 2016 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More unsourced budgets 2[edit]

You've recently added more unsourced budgets, for example [1] and [2]. Please remember to cite your source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:

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).

Easy4me (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recently found that I have been blocked for 3 months, which I personally find to be unreasonable. I will stop adding unsourced budgets. Easy4me (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that previous shorter blocks have not been effective, and even another 3 month block I don't think unblocking you is a good idea. There was a lot of attempting to communicate with you about this prior to the block. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 03:43, 5 July 2016 (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.

Why can't I just revert those edits? 04:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

(Note that I'm not an administrator, and I'm definitely not the admin who blocked you.) You should have done that before you were blocked. (You had plenty of chances to do this, as the declining admin said there was plenty of communication.) It would've shown that you understood what you were doing wrong. It also doesn't help that you have a history of being blocked at least four times (including now) for apparently the same reason as you are now. Usually, just saying you will stop isn't enough since anyone can say that. You have to prove you know what you did wrong and you have to convince the reviewing admin (the admin who reviews the unblock request) that you will not do it again, perhaps by giving an example of how to correctly do the thing that you were blocked for (which mainly appears to be constantly adding unsourced material after multiple warnings). You could post an example on your talk page, since you currently are still able to edit it. But, since your unblock request was denied, you must try to convince a (possibly different) reviewing admin (Another admin can unblock you with a very good reason.) even harder because they can't unblock you without a really good reason now, since the request has been denied once. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also notice that, as noted at the end of the unblock decline, you can put up another {{unblock}} template, but multiple unconvincing or disruptive requests may get your talk page access removed until your block expires. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2016 (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).

Easy4me (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Once more, I am requesting to have my Wikipedia unblocked or at least have a set date as to when I may be unblocked. I understand that I have made some disruptive edits in the form of unsourced movie budgets and in the future, I will make edits like this [3] rather than this [4]. I have also been recently accused of sockpuppeting, to which I admit to going under the account Checkitout18 briefly as well as Wikijunkie234. I admit that what I have done there is also wrong and I understand why I have been banned temporarily. I do not know how else to prove myself but I am regrettably sorry and I always strive to make a positive impact on the site. I am understanding the importance of citing information more and more as I further along in my college studies. Easy4me (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:Standard offer. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2016 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Shut In 2016 poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Shut In 2016 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Bye Bye Man poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Bye Bye Man poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ben-Hur 2016 poster.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ben-Hur 2016 poster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Easy4me. 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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

Concern[edit]

King of Hearts, I know this might be inconvenient but I have no other way of communicating with you since I am still blocked from editing and sending you a message on your talk page. I have been blocked since July 2016 and I am very eager to contribute to Wikipedia again in a positive way. I would really appreciate some feedback. Thanks! - Easy4me (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PINGS don't work that way. You have to ping a user AND sign the post in the same edit. This can't trigger a notification to King of Hearts. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to discuss this with me then? - Easy4me (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can make an WP:unblock request. If you want, I can copy it to WP:AN (as explained at Wikipedia:Standard_offer#How_does_it_work.3F). Vanjagenije (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lake (2016 film) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Lake (2016 film). Since you had some involvement with the The Lake (2016 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

NinjaRobotPirate, I would like to have a discussion with you. I've been blocked on here for over an entire year and I'm tired of it. Why am I still blocked? Easy4me (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you ignored many warnings prior to your block
Because you've engaged in extensive sock puppetry and block evasion
Because of edits like this one that draw attention to your IP sock puppets

There is a site-banned vandal whose current sock puppet account I know of. I could block him right now, and I would probably get a barnstar for doing so. He has vandalized Wikipedia for years, and he has his own long-term abuse page. However, his current account isn't doing anything disruptive. I check up on it every now and then, just to make sure, but he's just plugging away, obsessively editing anime shows. As long as he sticks to doing that, I'm just going to keep ignoring him. You, on the other hand, seem to have never learned your lesson. If you would simply stop making disruptive edits, I would probably stop blocking your sock puppets. Since I'm the only one on this site who even cares about your sock puppets, that would probably mean that you could do a clean start (even though it's against the rules). Your other option is to make an unblock request via {{unblock}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I personally wouldn't want to encourage against-the-rules-style editing, and I'm not averse to giving someone another chance, but E4M, you need to understand that you've been blocked like six times for totally avoidable behavioral problems. Sockpuppetry is annoying because it needlessly sucks up other editors' time and I personally don't understand the mindset of the many people who can't fathom our fairly basic rules, but still feel like they have an inalienable right to edit here. So weird. Anyway, if you think you can properly articulate why you think you should be unblocked, you should consider filing an unblock request, but I urge you to really dig deep of yourself when you post your case. Acknowledging the various problems that led to your various blocks, while presenting a convincing plan for how you'll avoid the issues in the future, is key. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have looked at some of my recent edits, you will notice that I have fixed the prior issue I had previously, that being not sourcing budgets. Also, in reference to this edit, I changed it from $25 million to $20 million because the article referenced mentions $20 million, not $25 million as the budget. Lately, I've been eager to contribute to the List of Nintendo Switch games as many announcement come forth seemingly every day for new games that are coming to the system. I really don't think I've caused much trouble lately aside from the sock puppetry. Also, I'm a little confused on the whole "clean start" method that was suggested. Easy4me (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: One of the reasons you are blocked is because of your repeated block evasion. You have just talked about your "recent edits" and admitted that you evaded your site ban as recently as yesterday. If you don't see the conflict there, WP:CIR is likely an issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:CIR and I get the feeling that because I have received multiple warnings in the past that I can't be trusted to edit on here again and that I don't have the capability to improve on my editing. I think that it is important to note that I was pretty young when I started editing on here. At my young age, I was more obstinate to take heed of the warnings and take the time to observe and implement constructive criticism. Now that I am more mature and experienced than I was 6 years ago, I think that I should be able to have a chance to prove myself. Again, I understand that sock puppetry is frowned upon on here and while I'm on the subject, I would like to point out that I have checked this page and would like to point out that I did not edit as WorldMilitaryFirepower or 103.38.18.148. I have no idea how those even got matched up with my edits. I looked over their contributions and I noticed that all of their edits were topics related to Bangladesh - something I know almost nothing about. (I couldn't even tell you where Bangladesh is on a map but I do know that it is a country.) Please let me know what your thoughts are on my situation. I greatly appreciate it. - Easy4me (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SummerPhD, am I allowed to request an edit to a page to you since I'm not allowed to edit pages myself for the time being? Easy4me (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said you are "not allowed to edit pages myself for the time being". From the way this is going, I'd say a fairer assessment would be that you are allowed to edit your talk page for the time being.

You -- the person, not the account -- are indefinitely blocked from editing. Any edits you do make are block evasion. Anyone who edits on your request can be blocked for meatpuppetry.

Your argument that you were young and obstinate ignores the clear fact that you are obstinate. You claim two of the 20 or more socks weren't you. One sock puppet is too many. Two is obstinate. 18 socks is someone who absolutely refuses to get it.

Proudly showing off your block evasion to prove you now understand points to two problems: the edits are still problematic and socking by itself is proof you do not/cannot understand.

The standard offer requires three things that I think you either cannot or will not do: not edit for six months, understand why you were blocked and not create additionalreasons for anyone to object to your return. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I am allowed to edit my talk page. (It was implied.) Also, what is meatpuppetry? I have never heard of this bizarre phrase before. I don't know why I can't suggest an edit for a page if I do propose a valid source for it. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about: check the List of Nintendo Switch games page and look at the source for Boiling Bolt. When the game was added to the list, it was done so because a Nintendo Switch logo was found on its page but it has recently been removed and the developer of the game stated that they had no plans to bring it to the platform at the time. While it is a minor example in the grand scheme of things, these are the type of edits that I am not allowed to make as a result of being blocked indefinitely and from the looks of it, I'll probably never be unblocked because the admins on here will see that I did something wrong in the past (that being sockpuppetry and the block evasion that goes with it as a result) and will not be willing to give me a fresh start. I don't understand why it has to be six months for me to be able to edit again (and even that isn't guaranteed). How will you know if users who are blocked indefinitely won't go back to old habits if you don't test them? For example, a page that clearly needs to be cleaned up could be offered as a template and that user must edit it correctly abiding by the guidelines in order to prove themselves. It's just a suggestion but I want to know what you think. Please don't try to come at me and call me "obstinate" and try to claim that I'm "proudly showing off my block evasion". I'm not proud of my block evasion but trying to ignore that I did it would be ignorant. In order to solve a problem, one has to realize that they made a mistake and be willing to admit it to themselves and then think of alternative ways to fix the issue with positive methods. Then, the positive methods must be put to action in order to solve the problem. I don't see how not editing for 6 months or having to "beg" (or that's what it feels like) via an unblock request does anything. - Easy4me (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By continuing to edit while blocked (as you have done repeatedly) you continue to demonstrate that you either cannot understand the rules or refuse to follow them. Which one it is does not matter.

You are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Your use of the talk page should be limited to requesting that your block be lifted.

As explained at WP:EVADE, others are not allowed to edit on your behalf. Whether your are the one pressing the keys or someone does it for you, the result is the same: changes you want to make should not be made.

Six months without editing would at least demonstrate that you did follow that one rule one time, as opposed to the twenty or more times you ignored that same rule. We'd still have your repeated refusal/inability to work collaboratively, etc. There is clearly nothing more to discuss here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coco (2017 musical film) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coco (2017 musical film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coco (2017 musical film) 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 notice from the top of the article. — Film Fan 13:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lights Out 2016 poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lights Out 2016 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sisters movie poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sisters movie poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lights Out 2016 poster.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lights Out 2016 poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Aluminum Man" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aluminum Man and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 28#Aluminum Man until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Bobb'e Says[edit]

The article Bobb'e Says has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable television series, lasted too short to make an impact

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]