User talk:Ian Streeter

November 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Pon de Replay. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. R&B is sourced in the Composition section. Stop vandalizing. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 14:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at If It's Lovin' that You Want, you may be blocked from editing. stop changing the genres without sources. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Block warning

You've gone back into the business of changing genres without any effort at discussion or consensus. For example, here at the article for DJ Felli Fel, where you removed 'Southern hip hop' from the genre line in the infobox. You've been blocked twice for this in the past two weeks. If you don't promise to stop changing genres, you may be indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Responding to your post at my talk page, your previous block warning said to avoid any genre changes. Now, if rearranging genres does not make a difference, why do it in the first place? Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-arranging the genres does not change the genres anyway though. Ian Streeter (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing, when they told me to promise not to change ANY music genres in the future, did that include even with sources? Ian Streeter (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You should not change any genres, period. If you think that a genre is not correct, leave a note on the article's talk page and give your reasoning. If someone else agrees with you, they will consider changing the genre. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But what if you want to change a genre, and it's SOURCED? Shouldn't THAT count? Ian Streeter (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your record is so bad that your changes of genres are likely to cause strong objections. Please try to edit quietly for a period of time and show that you want to have proper discussions of any changes you propose. The term 'genre warrior' is well-known here and you fit that stereotype perfectly. Consider branching out and working on other things. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

But what I mean is that I think it's fair to change genres with sources. I know I might edit genres overwhelmingly too much, but if I can find sources that basically makes an article improve. Ian Streeter (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

If you try to change any genres, even with sources, you are taking a risk that an admin will block you for disruption. Take a look at all the complaints on your talk page. (The complaints that were here before you deleted them all). EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What people are trying to say, Ian, is if you disagree with or question a genre, just write on the respective articles talk page, someone will reply to you. Calvin • ^TalkThatTalk 00:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

BUT WHAT IF THE GENRES AREN'T RIGHT? 1. If a song came out in 2011, and a person just makes a link to the page "[[R&B]]" and it's not by a rhythm and blues artist? Just like my edit to Miss Me. Drake is not a rhythm and blues recording artist. Isn't it okay if you just fix the link to "[[Contemporary R&B|R&B]]"? Because no one these days sings rhythm and blues (especially for Drake and other 2000s artists.) 2. If there's a link to the pages "[[Rock]]", "[[Pop]]", or "[[Hip hop]]<nowiki>/<nowiki>[[Hip Hop]]", can I add the term "music" to the link? Because if you go to each of those pages, it's going to lead you do a whole different page. Ian Streeter (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don;t know how many different ways there are of saying this. In order to be unblocked, you must promise NOT TO CHANGE ANY GENRES ON ANY ARTICLE FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. IF YOU THINK A GENRE IS WRONG OR SHOULD BE ADDED OR CHANGED FOR WHATEVER REASON, POST TO THE TALK PAGE AND SEEK CONSENSUS, THEN LET SOMEBODY ELSE MAKE THE CHANGE IF THERE IS CONSENSUS. If you agree to that, I will unblock you, but if you're unblocked and you don't keep your promise, you'll be indef'd again and you'll have to wait a long time for a sympathetic admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But what I mean is that maybe the links are the wrong links, (like I gave examples for, Rock, Pop, Hip hop). Template:Infobox album#Genre and Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre already cover this. And, what if the genre is Hip Hop? Nothing is supposed to be capitalized (excluding regional genres) except for the beginning letter. And also, what if the genre is rap? Rap is not even a real genre of music - as hip hop is the proper term for it. Ian Streeter (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No. The more exceptions are added, the less clear things become. Clear is you leaving genres alone. Full stop. If something needs changing to do with genres, post on the talk page and ask someone else to do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But what if the genre is "asdfhoadsifhaoshfq43 8r5q4n 7q9 nrq8934 r95q834 nr7849898y9f8y9sd8f"? Can I change it to an appropriate genre? Ian Streeter (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That is not a very likely possibility, now, is it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You have continued to change music genres here, on the Miss Me article, where you replaced 'R&B' with 'Contemporary R&B'. You made no effort to get consensus for your change. Per the extensive warnings above, you are indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. See WP:GAB for how to appeal your block. I am not optimistic about your chances for unblock, since you have been ignoring proper advice for a long period, and it seems unlikely that you have any intention to change. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

It wasn't even my fault. The person who added R&B as one of the genres was the person making a disruptive edit by changing the genre, not me.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM - even if someone else changed it first, you then changed it in violation of the repeated warnings you have been given -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Please do not remove declined block requests while you are still blocked, as you just did -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I will never do this again. I will ask Dan56 to do the edits. Ian Streeter (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Expecting someone else to make the same edits on your behalf that got you blocked in the first place does not solve the problem. The only way you will be unblocked is if you agree not to make any changes to genres whatsoever and discuss any changes you would like made on the relevant talk page (per my proposal above in all caps). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

About the last block request, why is it bad if I DISCUSS them? Don't you need consensus to change a genre? If I can't discuss them, then the genre won't be able to be changed AT ALL. So shouldn't it be fair that I just stick with finding consensus for the genre change that I want to do? Ian Streeter (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You don't seem to grasp the point. At first it was a matter of "please don't change genres without discussing them", but you have been so persistent in trying to get your own way with genres, and so determined to push your way right up to what you think are the borders of what you have been told not to do, that you have gone way beyond that stage. You have reached the stage of "You have made such a nuisance of yourself over genres in one way and another that it looks as though allowing you to continue to edit Wikipedia will cause so much trouble and waste so much of other people's time we think that it will be better not to have you editing at all." You say "If I can't discuss them, then the genre won't be able to be changed AT ALL" which is, of course, nonsense, as other people may decide to bring the question up. In fact that statement makes sense only if it means "If I can't discuss them, then the genre won't be able to be changed in the ways that I want AT ALL", and that is exactly the point: you are not allowed to introduce your changes to genres. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

JamesBWatson, thank you for unblocking me! But I'm still blocked. How can I solve this problem? Ian Streeter (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

From the words that he used I believe that JamesBWatson intended to *decline* your unblock. I can fix the template if you wish, so that you can get more admins to review this. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fix" the template? You mean change the accept to decline? Ian Streeter (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like JamesBWatson meant to decline your unblock request (judging by his words and by the fact that he didn't actually unblock you), and just used the wrong version of the template by mistake - he has been notified on his Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the unblock template originally actioned by JamesBWatson to show a status of 'declined', per the above discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

{{unblock |reason=I WILL NEVER EDIT GENRES AGAIN. I KNOW THAT I CAN'T EDIT THEM, BUT WHY CAN'T I DISCUSS THEM OR FIND CONSENSUS FOR A GENRE CHANGE? Seriously. I NEED TO BE UNBLOCKED. [[User:Ian Streeter|Ian Streeter]] ([[User talk:Ian Streeter#top|talk]]) 13:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)}}

• I really don't think you're going to be unblocked until you agree to avoid music genres altogether - no changes, no requests, no discussion, no nothing. And shouting is only going to make things worse for you. And if you're going to just keep repeating your insistence on working on music genres, I expect someone will suspend your Talk page access soon -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston is quite right, I did mean to decline the unblock request. Sorry for having misled you by pasting in the wrong version.JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I will never edit genres again. I will not discuss, request or change genres at all — unless I'm creating a new infobox. But other than that, I WILL KEEP SILENT ON GENRES. Ian Streeter (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After agreement from EdJohnston and reading the comments below, I've unblocked you, on the following conditions:

• You make no edits to change musical genres, even if the edit in question was vandalism.
• You do not discuss the subject of genres on talk pages, or ask others to make changes for you (including off-wiki)
• If you add an infobox to an article, or create a new article, you leave the genre blank.
• If you break these conditions, any uninvolved administrator may block you without warning.

 An optimist on the run! 17:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As this user has made good edits in the past, which don't involve genres (e.g. [1] picking one at random), I'm inclined to accept this unblock request, subject to the conditions Ian states above. I'll leave a note on the blocking admin's talk page. An optimist on the run! 08:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to ask you one important question — Did the part count when I said "unless I'm creating a new infobox"? Because if a song is a redirect or the page does not exist, and it's notable, can't I add the genre when I'm creating the new infobox for the song? Ian Streeter (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support an unblock with the condition that Ian will not touch any music genres except that he can add a genre on a one-time basis to an article which is newly created by him. (He can't add an infobox to an existing song that doesn't have one; he should wait for others to do that). Except for that, he can only discuss genres on talk pages, not touch them on articles. He can't apply genres by proxy, like by asking Dan56. The understanding will be that if he violates this restriction the indef block will be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Like the page "Mrs. Right" is a redirect to #1 Girl. Is it okay if I change it to an on-its-own song article with a genre in the infobox? And why can't I create a new infobox to a song that doesn't have one? Ian Streeter (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NSONGS, Mrs. Right does not appear to be sufficiently notable for its own article...

• "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

As for the prohibition on adding new infoboxes to existing articles, I can see a risk that you might choose a genre that conflicts with the article content itself - and given your history, I think you need to be prevented from *all possible* genre conflicts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Itsgood.ogg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Itsgood.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)