User talk:Steam Heatsystem

June 2018

Hello, I'm Mr Xaero. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Age Of have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Mr X ^☎️ 06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at This Is America (song). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mr X ^☎️ 06:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr X: I don’t think it’s vandalism. Assume good faith. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 06:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

“This is America” mashup

Regarding the content you’ve added to “This Is America” (song), I don’t think it’s notable since it’s a fan mashup and doesn’t have anything to do with Childish Gambino. Also, you would need a source for the reception of the mashup if it were to be included in the article, and Twitter isn’t a recommended source. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 06:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Interqwark: I found a source for the reception. Also, what sets this mashup apart from mashups like "Finest Dreams" and "Sneaky Armada" as just a "fan mashup"? Steam Heatsystem (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that a link to a Reddit post is a reliable source. See WP:REDDIT.

Also, there is no need to mention that the producer is “queer” and “black.”

And again, I’m not sure if this is notable enough to be included in the article since there are no actual secondary sources about the mashup. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 06:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I'll find better sources soon. And I figured that since Sydney's queerness and blackness is a big part of their identity as a musician, it would warrant inclusion. I guess it does sound weird though. Steam Heatsystem (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think there are any secondary sources that can verify any of this.

Also, I think that the nationality of the producer (e.g., German) would be more beneficial to be included in the paragraph instead. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 07:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. Steam Heatsystem (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sweet Leaf, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Lists of covers with no individual notability fail WP:SONGCOVER especially when unsourced or poorly sourced. Egghead06 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sweet Leaf. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:SONGCOVER before reverting. Egghead06 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You had to delete sources just to make your blanking make sense. Steam Heatsystem (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Heatsystem, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Steam Heatsystem! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

Your recent editing history at This Is America (song) 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. Ss112 08:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you had to delete sources just to make your agenda-pushing make sense lmao Steam Heatsystem (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Agenda-pushing", says the editor who thinks Bandcamp is an actual news source rather than what looks like you promoting an irrelevant band or musical act by linking to their page to gain them some clicks. Ss112 09:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only source I cited but okay. I don't know why you're being so hostile just because you don't like a certain song. I'm just trying to add information, mister [redacted - personal attack]. Steam Heatsystem (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on This is America (song)

A fan mashup is not notable unless it has coverage on reliable sites. A Bandcamp post, Reddit post, and tweet are not proper sources per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. You need secondary sources. Wikipedia only covers fan content if it’s notable and has been covered by news sites.

Please don’t re-add the paragraph without finding secondary sources. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 09:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning for adding an accurate genre to an article. The editor whose username is Z0 10:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. 5 albert square (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For any reviewing admins, the user made this edit changing genre. They then acknowledged a post on their talk page advising that reliable sources must be provided. Instead of undoing their edit, they simply edited the page to remove the comment about providing reliable sources.

They also attacked a user.

Steam Heatsystem, attacking other users is never acceptable. I suggest you use your time out to read our policy on personal attacks and our policy on providing reliable sources. Upon your return, if you continue editing in this manner, you can expect your next block to be considerably longer, perhaps even indefinite.--5 albert square (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I made a mistake. My finger slipped. I'll never do it again, and I'll make sure to only contribute helpful and reliable content to the wiki from now on. Steam Heatsystem (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is clear from your edits that you have no intention of contributing here in good faith. Request declined, and I am extending the block due to your editing while logged out(block evasion) 331dot (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2018 (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.

For the reviewing admin, they made this edit to their talk page today which is why access has now been revoked.--5 albert square (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the reviewing admin, 5 Albert Square thinks being called out for their racism is "grossly insulting." How is racism less insulting, degrading, or offensive than being called out for racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.209.14 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

5 albert square (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]