User talk:Hadji87

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hadji87. 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)

Nomination of We Are Loud for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article We Are Loud 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/We Are Loud 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Heavy

Two things:

1. There are plenty of other songs in the same situation and the name of the articles follows a pattern, which is the current one.
2. Don't make significant changes to a article (like changing it's name) without a consensus with the other editors first.

And don't forget to sign your messages otherwise they will not be answered anymore. Coltsfan (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hadji – You've been warned numerous times in the past about changing article names without discussion first. Please follow the instructions at WP:RM. Why is this so hard for you to understand? You've also been editing far too long not to know how to sign your messages by now. You simply use 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:09, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grace Chatto

The article Grace Chatto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication that she is notable outside of Clean Bandit; perhaps WP:TOOSOON?

While all constructive 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. Launchballer 23:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Now 96 UK Cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Now 96 UK Cover.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 23:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hello, Hadji87, Thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as 86.176.4.145 (talk · contribs) (I've noticed other IPs with similar editing patterns as yours, too). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sources tag

Please do not remove tag without resolving the issue first. Sources are important, and if no sources are given, then the information will be removed. Hzh (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2017 in British music charts

The article 2017 in British music charts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Verging on NOTNEWS with only one source used throughout, some chart entries remain unsourced. It could be condensed down quite massively or gotten rid of altogether with a category for top selling singles of a year.

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. Nördic Nightfury 15:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 in British music charts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 in British music charts 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/2017 in British music charts 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. Nördic Nightfury 19:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Now music 97.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Now music 97.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 17:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your recent editing history at Now That's What I Call Music! 76 (UK series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

IP vandal

You continue to edit as an IP, creating disruption and confusion to articles you edit. By not logging on, you make it appear that the edits made as IP as coming from a different editor and not you. Please stop this practice. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC) Just leave the article for Now 76 alone. Every Now article has that trivia

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Now That's What I Call Music! 76 (UK series)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music! discography

Past releases exist. While it would be preferable to have cites for the the release dates (either in their individual articles or here), their existence is easily verified via Amazon or hundreds of other outlets.

For whatever reason, we have several vandals who created future kids' albums, TV shows, movies and such and add them to existing articles. The only way to ferret out the fake future releases is by either having every editor who checks search sources (which would be absurdly inefficient) or for editors adding dates for future releases to cite the source that they are supposed to have available when they are adding the material. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Read WP:NSONGS

Read WP:NSONGS. The article fails WP:NSONGS. Only when there is a reasonably detailed article should there be an article created for it. Charting does not mean a song is notable, "only that it may be notable". You've been reported for sockpuppetry. This has gone on long enough. Using IPs to make articles then reverting using this account is disruptive and you know this. Ss112 06:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing While Logged Out

Hi Hadji87. There is very strong evidence that you have been editing while logged out. And that at times this has been done in tandem with edits carried out under your own account on articles in a manner that creates the impression that there is more than one editor involved. Worse, it looks to me like this is being done in an effort to get an edge in some content disputes. Further this activity is aggravated by the fact that you have been warned about it in the past. Let me be clear here. This is a specie of sockpuppetry and it needs to stop, immediately. You have been around long enough that you should know better. This notice should be considered a Final Warning. If this has to be addressed again you can expect a long term block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Looks like Hadji is still editing while logged out; they've been recreating articles that fail WP:NSONGS, like Anywhere (Rita Ora song) and I Miss You (Clean Bandit song). Hadji's most recent edits are to do with the Now! series of albums, and the IP 109.157.190.66 has been editing these and UK music topics as well. Ss112 12:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Proof right here. Looks like Hadji logged back into just to confirm the link: IP restoring "Anywhere", Hadji restoring "Anywhere". Ss112 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

At least I proved a point that there are songs less notable than “Anywhere” which still have an article. “The Man” for example is less notable than “Anywhere”.

I don't know if you've ever actually read WP:NSONGS. Chart positions don't equal notability; a song should only have its own article if it is reasonably detailed; chart positions indicate a song may be notable, not that it is. The Man (The Killers song) has far more substantial coverage (from news sources talking about the album) than the stub for "Anywhere" had. "Anywhere" had basically nothing beyond chart positions, which are already on Rita Ora discography so the article said nothing about the song that wasn't contained elsewhere. Ss112 13:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for socking, specifically editing while logged out. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Hadji87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #19721 was submitted on Nov 10, 2017 11:15:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2017 in British music charts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2017 in British music charts 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/2017 in British music charts (2nd nomination) 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. Nightfury 10:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Hadji87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The majority of pages have been contributed by me. 99% if the page 2017 in British music charts was built by me

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The majority of pages have been contributed by me. 99% if the page 2017 in British music charts was built by me |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The majority of pages have been contributed by me. 99% if the page 2017 in British music charts was built by me |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The majority of pages have been contributed by me. 99% if the page 2017 in British music charts was built by me |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}