User talk:Fan4Life

Welcome!

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

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

Discussion at Talk:Ariana Grande

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

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

Invitation

Hello! I noticed you've made edits to Ariana Grande articles. I thought you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Ariana Grande We are a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Ariana and her discography. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You. LikeGaga

Ariana Grande

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

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

ANI Experiences survey

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

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

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

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

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

"Streaming is not listed on other single pages"

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

Cover artwork

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Imagine

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

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

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

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

Side2SideDW and Techoliver298 are the same person

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

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

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

Walking on Air (Katy Perry song)

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

RfC

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

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

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

Imagine

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Ariana Grande Dates Sweetener Tour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Songwriters order for Monopoly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Ariana Grande shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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. The Banner talk 17:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for edit-warring

Your 3-month block for edit-warring expired a couple of days ago. You immediately resumed your edit-warring. This was pointed out to you by Ponyo, whose warning you removed, and you then switched from edit-warring at Nicki Minaj to edit-warring at Ariana Grande. I have therefore indefinitely blocked you.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I didn't edit war, in both cases I only reverted once, then after my edit was reverted the second time I stopped and let it go. Fan4Life (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't edit war. In both cases I made an edit, it got reverted, I reverted back, and it got reverted again, after which I stopped and let it go. Even if I had been edit warring, that wouldn't justify an indefinite block per WP:INDEF. Fan4Life (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You need to commit to using dispute resolution in the future. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2020 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: Of course I'll use dispute resolution in future, I was trying to improve, which is why I didn't revert again after my edit was reverted the second time. Fan4Life (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You're ideally supposed to use dispute resolution after your edit is reverted. You should consider reading through Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Edit warring blocks, including "Three-revert rule" blocks and others, and Wikipedia:Edit warring#How experienced editors avoid becoming involved in edit wars. Then make another unblock request that takes into account the advice offered in those pages. In the grand scheme of things, edit warring is not such a major wiki-crime. If you promise to stop, it's likely you'll be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Even with seven prior blocks for edit-warring? The Banner talk 11:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: I wasn't aware that reverting a revert could be considered edit warring, I think the policy page needs to be made clearer. Fan4Life (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I wasn't aware that reverting a revert could be considered edit warring, I thought that by not reverting again after my edit was reverted the second time I was avoiding becoming involved in an edit war, but now I know that's not the case and I should've used dispute resolution after my edit was reverted the first time. In future I will make sure I follow WP:BRD and use dispute resolution. Fan4Life (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I wanted to hear Bbb23's opinion as a check on myself, but I agree that the Standard Offer plus the conditions discussed here would beneficial and allow you to better reflect on your actions and perhaps delve into the edit warring policy a bit more. I am declining your request, I would suggest that you wait the six months for the SO. (so August) 331dot (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2020 (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.

From 2017 to now they've been blocked six times all for edit warring[15], When is it time to say enough is enough?. Personally I don't buy the "I wasn't aware" malarky but hey I'm not an admin. –Davey2010^Talk 14:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Aside from agreeing to use dispute resolution, I would not unblock you without you agreeing to a 0RR restriction as prior blocks have not motivated you to avoid edit warring and you seem to have difficulty recognizing what it is to edit war. 331dot (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: It's not fair to say that previous blocks haven't motivated me to avoid edit warring, my block at the end of last year was my first in over two years. I'm willing to agree to a 0RR restriction if it's the only way I'll get unblocked, but would I still be allowed to revert unconstructive edits such as vandalism, and would there be any possibility of it being lifted in future? @Davey2010: I wasn't aware because the policy page is far from clear, I knew that reverting three times is edit warring, but beyond that the policy is vague. Fan4Life (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Under 0RR you would still be permitted the listed exemptions in the edit warring policy. You could appeal the restriction to WP:AN after six months. 331dot (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair I misunderstood EW back in 2012 and 2014 and was blocked both those years for it ... however you sit back, watch and learn I guess and in all fairness you've had 3 years to learn it Fan,

Also the edit you had a problem with was in the article since the end of November[16] so therefore the onus was on you to seek consensus for its removal, You removed the content and Someone basically reverted you so your next port of call should've been the talkpage, I'm not trying to lecture you but I genuinely don't believe you didn't realise you were still edit warring..... –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: In that case I'll agree to a 0RR restriction. Fan4Life (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Bbb23 What do you think? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• @331dot: I think the user has zero insight into their own conduct and is only agreeing to a 0RR restriction because there's no other way anyone would unblock them otherwise. In this instance, I believe the WP:SO of six months would be most appropriate so the user can reflect more on their conduct and make a more meaningful unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)