This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Swan Song (song), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Ss112 13:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been blocked from Wikipedia for "sock puppetry". This is the only account I ever used and I just joined a few days ago I never did that. I don’t know why I was blocked Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Can I be unblocked? I never did “sock puppetry” the user names isn’t me. This is (was) my first Wikipedia account.

Hello Billiekhalidfan. Your block is being reviewed. I apologize for the delay, however a real world situation has developed that is requiring my urgent attention. You will be informed as soon as the review is complete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Following up on your block review, after discussing this with other experienced editors we have agreed that while there are some similarities between some of your edits and another editor who has been indefinitely blocked (and repeatedly attempted to evade their block), we believe there is reasonable doubt in this situation. Accordingly I have unblocked you. Please be careful when editing genres on articles relating to music and/or other forms of entertainment as this is often a contentious subject. When modifying genres be sure to cite a reliable secondary source and make note of it in your edit summary. I apologize for any inconvenience and wish you happy editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Welcome Billiekhalidfan!

I just indefinitely blocked Electricwater (talk · contribs · count) because there was no policy-based reason for you to create a second account. Consider this message a warning that if you resume socking, whether with another named account or abusively editing while not logged in, you risk being indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to She Is Coming, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Ss112 00:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Flame (Laine Hardy song), you may be blocked from editing. Stop going around to different articles and adding unsourced genres or you can and will be blocked. Ss112 04:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Lauv. Invalid^OS (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How did I vandalize? Not to be rude but I am confused. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Wait until consensus is achieved before moving "Call You Mine" at Bebe Rexha discography. Ss112 14:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited So Am I (Ava Max song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maria Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 14:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Stop re-adding the hatnote as the titles are not similar enough. You're the only person who keeps sneaking it back in there so it's probably just you who can't distinguish titles that are so clearly different. Bye.--NØ 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that an article you created, It's Not U It's Me has not been added to any categories. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, every article should be in at least one category. Please help by adding categories to the articles you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe because Camila added a few random emojis in her Twitter bio that that makes it her next album title? What complete nonsense. I don't know where you pulled this nonsensical, fever dream album title from, but it's being nominated for speedy deletion. Ss112 08:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Billiekhalidfan! You created a thread called Uploading images at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Billiekhalidfan! You created a thread called Previous Songs at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Song Like You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jorge Gutierrez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Way Out (EP) 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/The Way Out (EP) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a consensus at the talk page for pop, country and rock to be in the infobox. Red is called a pop album several times in the Critical reception section, and the only mention of country-pop is by a critic who says it departs from that style. In general, focus less of your attention on the infobox and the genre field, especially in articles where such information has already been well established. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The way you're editing on multiple articles, you're really risking a block here. Stop adding speculative, unsourced information, especially when it's only based on your own fan theories about when artists started and finished recording material. You do not have proof she didn't add anything more to the album. You're not helping the situation on the article, where there's already sockpuppets leaving argumentative edit summaries and edit warring like you. And if you'd READ my edit summary, you'd see I called IP editors annoying. Not you, but it looks like you already are annoying quite a few editors on multiple different articles. Ss112 03:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The song was released along with the album and not sent for radio adds or given a music video. Why are you labelling it a single? Just charting does not make a song a single.—NØ 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is petty if you did it to retaliate for the discussion I started about "Antisocial". Also, please refrain from creating articles with unnecessary disambiguation. "Contaminated (Banks song)" should be at "Contaminated (song)" since no other song of the name has an article. Petty attempts at revenge are not gonna solve anything so discuss here if you have a problem with me. Thanks.—NØ 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I wasn’t retaliating I was just asking a different question. Also I didn’t realize Banks' "Contaminated" was the only song with that title so I will move it. Thanks for telling me. Also this talk section is under the wrong category.

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that an article you created, Contaminated (song) has not been added to any categories. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, every article should be in at least one category. Please help by adding categories to the articles you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Spotify Singles (EP) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NALBUMS: it is not a major headline for non-trivial sources; it has not charted on any chart; it has not been certified by any music association bodies

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. HĐ (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Do I have to get an administrator involved? Do NOT copy and paste content other users created. The page is going to be moved to the proper place; I have put in a request, so do not copy and paste it. It is never okay to move content you did not solely write to a different page on Wikipedia. Ss112 04:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

• As User:Ss112 wrote, do not make cut-and-paste moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In regards to this edit summary, when an album or song has been released in any country, we can update articles saying it has been released. It was already July 12 in several countries in further-ahead time zones when that was changed. Ss112 14:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Some of your edits, like this one, are frankly just bizarre. How you honestly think anybody would be typing in "Buy me diamonds" on Wikipedia looking for anything other than the song, like "buy me diamonds" is a common thing people would type if they want to buy diamonds, is beyond me. I think you need to slow down and think through certain things more. That's honestly the only "advice" I only give you here because a lot of what you do is baffling to me. Please also start leaving edit summaries for your edits, it might help explain some of your...reasoning behind the edits you make. Ss112 17:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Wow (Post Malone song), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You need a source for the song being a single from an upcoming album. Ss112 04:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bea Miller, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Wanna Know (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The music video for "Gone" was literally only released half an hour ago. It was certainly not out at the time you "updated" the article, and nor was the track. Don't do this in future, you will be reverted. You need to be sure things have actually been released by checking their availability and not assuming. Ss112 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

He’s both a rapper and a singer. This is a controversial topic and we can’t just pick one descriptor over the other.—NØ 13:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes but why would we write "American rapper and singer Lil Nas X and American rapper Cardi B"? They’re both American rappers, so it is simpler and makes more sense to just write "American rappers Lil Nas X and Cardi B". Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan, do not copy my edit summaries (to mock me) like you did here. I’ve already let it slide that you’re going around expanding redirects I create, before I can get to them. You’re inching close to exhausting the community's patience with your useless edits that are only done to make a WP:POINT. Now on topic, Cardi is described as just "rapper" on all of her articles, check them. Whereas Lil Nas X has been described as a "rapper and singer" ever since the Billboard controversy.—-NØ 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually those genres on both articles were sourced. Disco for Katy Perry was sourced in Musical style just as pop and rock were. The other genres for Bebe Rexha were sourced in artistry like the other genres were. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Billiekhalidfan. Thank you for your contributions to the project. However, some of your undoubtedly well intentioned edits are causing some disruption. Please slow down. A lot of the things in music related articles like credits and genre have been put in following discussion and the formation of WP:CONSENSUS. As such unilateral changes are often frowned on. When making substantive changes to articles of this sort it is always best to seek a 2nd opinion first or better to drop a note on the article talk page and wait 24 hrs to see if there is an objection. If changing anything in info boxes be sure to cite your source(s) either in the box entry itself or at least in the edit summary. Thank you again for all of your work, but it would be appreciated if you took notice of longstanding consensus in some aspects of these articles before making sudden changes. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Ava Max does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! - FlightTime (open channel) 21:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I already knew what an edit summary is though, but thanks for your help. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

"Well, that's one reason for the revert, you didn't explain yourself. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please take a deep breath, remember to assume good faith and that this is a somewhat newer editor who may not be fully used to how we do things here. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dua Lipa (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No Lie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Any more attempts at retroactively changing credits and edit warring to retain them because the artist said the word "featuring" once in an insignificant tweet and I will ask for an admin to warn you. This kind of contentious editing from you has got to stop. Such significant changes to credits need to be brought to the talk page and discussed. You've been doing this since at least what happened on Call You Mine and before. Any more edit warring from you and an admin warning will be coming your way because you obviously won't listen to anybody else. If you continue beyond that, it's ANI. You've received how many warnings for this kind of behaviour now? Combined with thinking you can still copy and paste material you didn't write from one article to another? Stop it. Ss112 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: I wasn’t edit warring with "Gone", I literally changed it once because the artist shared the back cover of the album with the correct credits. And didn’t you say that credits on streaming services didn’t count? And the cover art from the artist has the right credits? How is the back cover any different than that? Also the copy paste thing was an honest mistake, I thought that was how you moved articles and I haven’t done it again after on Harder (Jax Jones and Bebe Rexha song). It seems like almost every small thing I do someone goes on my talk page and complains about it.

Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Not once did I say credits on streaming services "don't count". I said, regarding "Call You Mine" and "Call You Mine" only, that streaming services' credits were not directly from the artist and not as significant as the front cover of a single that was most likely approved directly by an artist. However, what I did not say is that it depends on what it is. We can't say which source we use for credits for one artist is always the way it should be everybody else. Every circumstance is different. Back covers have been wrong before, and what's significant in the case of "Gone" is that the credit changed from "featuring" to "and" on music services, most likely in conjunction with something to do with Christine. Obviously they can't and they're not going to go back and change a printed back cover. Ss112 15:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Okay fine. But you don’t have to use vulgar slang words in edit summaries directed toward me.

Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If your idea of vulgar is "crap" and "dream the F on", let me tell you it's going to be a rude awakening for you the more time you spend and the more you interact with some truly nasty editors here on Wikipedia. Ss112 05:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Also why do you get to change the credits whenever you want but then you write "discuss credit changes in talk page" for everyone else?

Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Because you've been warned for it over and over, and I explained why—you didn't until prompted. Are we done with this yet? Ss112 06:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure "equal credit" is not an explanation…Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How you think songs from three years ago can in any way be released in promotion of an album that hasn't even been released yet in 2019 is beyond me. As I and several other editors have previously told you, you should propose these changes on the talk page because they are contentious and you are changing things that have been in place for months, sometimes years. All of what you added to Snacks (Supersize) was unsourced—there are no sources saying all of Jax's singles were released in promotion of this particular album. Being included on this album is not the same as being released in promotion of it. Most were included on the Snacks EP preceding it and contemporaneous with half of the songs that were added to it. Every day, you are continuing to make a tonne of contentious edits when you've been told to slow down. Ss112 07:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that there are also singles from Snacks released three years apart? Also any album can do this, like Blood, Sweat & 3 Years and Vida (Luis Fonsi album), had singles released two years prior to the album. Snacks (Supersize) is literally an expanded edition of Snacks, hence that it has the same name except "Supersize" in parentheses. It is basically a deluxe edition. So why would the singles from Snacks not be used to promote this album? Also you don't know if the singles promote this album either, unless you are in fact, Jax Jones or the owner of Polydor Records. Also it seems more unlikely to me that singles released in March, May, and July 2019 were used to promote a 2018 EP than an album released a few months after the singles. But, hey, I guess you're Jax Jones and you know exactly everything about this album, and I'm just making "a tonne" of contentious edits. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan. You have multiple experienced editors telling you that you need to slow down and discuss potentially contentious edits. Please heed this advice. The community tries to make allowances for new editors while they learn how things are done. However, behavior that is persistently disruptive will eventually draw a firmer response. Thank you... -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Billiekhalidfan, thanks for trying to tell me what Snacks (Supersize) is like I didn't create the article—hilarious. I already explained my reasoning but fine, here it is again: the EP of the same name preceded the album. You know this. You also know the EP was re-released with each new single every time one came out. I think it's common sense something made two or three years ago cannot at the time it was released have been promoting a release that followed years later. However, I'm of the opinion that singles generally "belong" to the first release they appear on, not multiple releases just because the artist released their debut album later on including the song. You don't need to be Jax Jones to know it, you just need to have common sense, but perhaps it's not as common as I thought. And yes, you are still making a tonne of contentious edits. Slow down. Like Ad Orientem told you. And I'm not going to be engaging in pointless little arguments here with you now that you've decided you want to start firing back on your talk page unlike before. If I disagree with your edits, which is bound to happen with the volume of pages you're editing and contentious edits you're making, then you can take it to the article talk page like I've said multiple times. Ss112 15:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at K-12 (album) 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.
User:Ad Orientem, I don't know what to tell you but Billiekhalidfan is not shaping up to be a productive editor—now they're retaliating in edit summaries, and still edit warring when reverted. Is this not headed towards a block? Ss112 22:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You’re literally doing the same thing. When I do something you change it back. How are you not edit warring? A war can’t only have one person involved. And it doesn’t need to be discussed whether or not the literal title of a reference should be included. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Who was disregarding WP:BRD? That would be you. You are being spiteful and vindictive by tagging me back in edit summaries because now you know how to. You are literally a newbie editor acting like you've been here for years and like you know everything or as much as the editors who are warning you. News flash: You don't. There is literally no requirement that we replicate the titles of websites exactly, to the letter, in reference titles. It is expected that users generally copy them, but it is not a requirement. I added most of the references to K-12, you didn't. Don't act like you did and have some standard to maintain. You have not taken one word of advice given to you here and honestly, you will be blocked for being disruptive quite soon. All I'll say is that you had it coming because you didn't slow down when told to. Ss112 23:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Stop it. Both of you. I'm not seeing much of what I'd call edit warring but when an edit is reverted the next stop should be the talk page. @Ss112, I think you are over reacting and your comment above is unnecessarily snarky. But both of you need to dial it down and try to remember that you are on the same team here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Only as snarky as they were to me in their sad little edit summary. They're headed towards a block and you know it. My patience has officially run out. Ss112 23:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The first songs unveiled from an album preorder are generally insta-grat promotional singles, released to push preorders. They are assumed to be buzz singles until either a music video, artwork or radio release date, or unless several sources start calling it a single. In this case, "The Archer" is only confirmed to have a digital release on iTunes through the preorder. It is probably just an insta grat track. I'm not interested in getting into an edit war so please revert yourself if you agree with this concept. Thanks.--NØ 14:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: What is an "insta-grat track"?

Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Another way of saying promotional single, they are called "insta grat" because they are instantly downloaded when fans preorder an album. Google it or read this for further information. Also, I'm gonna remove the release date since there is no source for it. Taylor has never released a song on a Wednesday iirc, you can't just assume she is gonna start now.--NØ 14:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It is likely that it is a promotional single, although "You Need to Calm Down" also appeared in the iTunes pre-order before it was released, so I would just wait until the announcement at 5 to call it a single or promotional single. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• Billiekhalidfan, please stop copying album cover images to its songs' articles. Those images are only licensed for use on one article (that's the album article), and using it elsewhere is not fair use unless there's a really good reason, so don't do it. Same with typing up a track list to use on the article. Unless it's an actual template, like the one for Camila (album), then we don't try to add one. Thank you. Ss112 15:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Would you kindly send me an email? The link can be found in the left sidebar on my talk page. I would like to have a quiet word or two. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I couldn’t find the email.Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

It's listed under "Tools" in the left sidebar on my user talk page. It says "Email this user." -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I found the "Tools" section but it doesn't say "email this user" anywhere. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's probably because you don't have your own email set up. Stand by. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I got your email and will be replying shortly. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Billiekhalidfan/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((teahouse talkback)) template).

Do you need help setting up an archive ? You say at the tea house you had set up an archive, but I don't see any. If you need help I can set it up so that threads are automatically archived, just let me know. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought I added one but I probably did it wrong so yes I do need help. Thanks. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Here's your first archive page User talk:Billiekhalidfan/Archive 1. Do you want to have it automatic or do you want to do it manually? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Automatic. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You do have that part already set up. Usually users choose a template to display the archive links, the most common ways are ((talk header)) or ((archive box)). - FlightTime (open channel) 16:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the bot that does the archiving runs once a day so you probably won't see anything until tomorrow. FYI - FlightTime (open channel) 16:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay! Thank you so much for your help. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Your setup will archive all threads (with more than one timestamp) older than 30 days. You can adjust this by changing the value at | algo = - FlightTime (open channel) 16:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

We never note which tracks are marked as "explicit" on albums. You will find there are basically no other articles with this because nobody cares—it's incredibly trivial. Some singers swear in songs, big deal. You are just looking for things to do on articles now. You do not need to keep editing articles you're following or interested in just after and/or because somebody else edits them. If you're actually fixing a mistake they made, fine, but if not, I'm sure there are better uses of your time and more worthwhile things to do. Ss112 19:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ss112. Their right to edit articles is not limited because someone else has edited it. If their edits are unhelpful that's one thing. But otherwise we are all free to try and improve articles wherever and whenever we feel called. I frequently am moved to have a look at articles I have forgotten when they pop up on my watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

However, I have to agree with Ss112 marking tracks/albums as "explicit" is a waste of time not only for the adding editor but the editor who is undoubtedly going to revert it. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I did not state Billiekhalidfan could not edit what they like, and that is not even what I implied. As FlightTime said, it is redundant and to me it reads like the kind of edit someone makes when they're looking for things to do on an article just because it popped up on their watchlist. Ss112 20:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps I misunderstood some of what you wrote. Though again, I have been known to look around and edit articles that suddenly pop up on my watchlist. But certainly edits that are not an improvement can be reverted with a polite note of explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is not a formal warning but I just wanted to suggest that you be careful when reverting several times on the same page. Just because the user being reverted is an IP or because they’re not using edit summaries, does not mean WP:3RR doesn’t apply. I personally agree with the edits you were making, but you probably did exceed 4 reverts on Me! and The Archer (song) in the last 24 hours. Thanks.—NØ 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• And make your edit summaries a little different than other people even if you’re doing the same thing. Nearly identical summaries like this have been used as evidence to accuse people of sockpuppetry in the past. Surely you wouldn’t want that, would you?—NØ 12:18, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. For the edit summaries though, I wasn't aware that those were similar to other summaries but thanks for letting me know. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:MAX - Love Me Less ft. Quinn XCII (Official Cover Art).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) 17:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually I added the image to Wikipedia but then when I went to the article someone already uploaded it so now the image is just sitting there. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Billiekhalidfan! You created a thread called Talk pages at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

May I remind you to be WP:CIVIL, as you weren't in your edit summary here. Be careful as you're on thin ice as it is. You wouldn't want to wear out the rope of good faith that has been extended to you due to being inexperienced. It's definitely not "random crap I made up" as you have accumulated 40 edits on the "The Archer" article without contributing substantial content. On a different note, you just found your way to an article I created half an hour earlier, which wasn't linked anywhere. Do not stalk users you have created a conflict with. You violated WP:3RR on two pages yesterday and weren't reported, so be nicer.--NØ 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Both of you need to tone it down. Take your disagreement to the article talk page. courtesy ping MaranoFan -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would have taken it to the article talk page if it was a content dispute, but it moreso has to do with the user's conduct. Billiekhalidfan is almost exclusively editing articles I create. I don't have a problem with that itself. But on the recently created "The Archer (song)" article, BKF keeps going back to it every time anyone else edits the page, making bogus edits which are barely improvements. There are also several hidden notes placed on the page which are completely unnecessary. On No.6 Collaborations Project (another article I created), BKF has placed another useless hatnote which assumes that people will confuse "Put It All on Me" with "Lay It All on Me", which is honestly bizarre, just like the last one he placed on the same page. His contributions need to receive quality control since a majority of them are of no use. I just happen to provide that when he makes bizarre edits on pages that are on my watchlist. But now he's lashing out and accusing people of "harassment" for doing that, even though it's clearly necessary.--NØ 15:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not "almost exclusively" editing articles you create. You're probably just creating a lot of articles and I am coincidentally editing them. Also I am not editing "The Archer" every time someone else does. When I added that hidden note I was already the last to edit the article so that doesn't make sense. And I only added it so people would stop removing genres to sit their own view. It is kind of harassing to get so mad because I made an edit to an article. I am not stalking you I literally just came across the article. Bye. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Love Me Less, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is not correct to do on disambiguation pages. You should only link to an actual article. If the song doesn't have an article, then link to either the artist or the album it's from—not both, as there should only be one link per entry/line. Also, please wait until the song is actually released or is confirmed to be coming out. We don't know when Rexha's "Heaven Sent" is coming out or if it even will. Ss112 00:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cry Baby (Melanie Martinez song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Melanie Martinez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop taking something I say in relation to one article, and then running with it as fact and trying to apply it to every similar case you can find. There is no compulsion that an EP cannot have nine tracks. Go with the sources. That Alina Baraz project is clearly an EP. Billboard says so, Rolling Stone agrees, Baraz herself calls it an EP in this interview. Wikipedia is not a place for you to enforce your opinion about what things are, we report what reliable secondary sources say. Nothing is a rule of thumb if sources unanimously disagree with it.--NØ 08:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop this. You are literally just looking for things to do. It is annoying, and I'm not the only editor who has raised this with you, and I'm far from the only editor who's had issues with your edits. You have been told multiple times to slow down, consider your edits and to stop thinking you need to edit an article you're interested in straight after someone else has or when you next are online. You can provide all the excuses you like, but it's happened too often to just be "coincidence" or whatever you said above. You do not need to do this. I am certain there are far better uses of your time. Ss112 02:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Oh, I'm only editing to have the current edit. What about one of your edits here? The reason I changed "Jones's" to "Jones'" was because I actually thought the former was incorrect. But then you said that they were both correct and that there was "no need to change it" and then literally changed it. That was clearly done to have the last edit. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

So you're continuing this three days later because you think I'm being hypocritical...yeah, no. I said you didn't need to change it in the first place, so I changed it back to the way I had written it because it wasn't incorrect and it didn't need to be changed. That's not wanting to have the current edit—if anything, it's telling you you don't need to unnecessarily change things to start with. I advise you to choose your battles. Don't try and get one up on somebody who has criticised you. It looks vindictive. Besides, I'm not even the only editor who has criticised you for this exact thing. Ss112 17:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: I'm loving the tea on this talk page. ☕

First of all, you cited WP:SHOUT twice on Ariana Grande. If you actually read, WP:SHOUT applies to SHOUTING LIKE THIS on talk pages, not capitalised words for emphasis in commented-out messages. Bolding words in commented-out messages would make no difference to anybody. Capitalising all of a commented-out message is frowned upon; specific words is not really an issue and anybody thinking it is is just looking for issues. Also, you added unsourced EPs to JoJo Siwa's article, and made some arbitrary distinction between her song "I Can Make U Dance" being a promo single. That's also unsourced, so it's been reverted and restored to the main table. Unless you have compelling proof that it's classified as a promotonal single, don't change it. And when you add content to an article, make sure it's sourced in future. Surely you do not need to be educated about WP:V. Ss112 22:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

How do you end up editing or reverting on a page minutes afternoon I edit? How do you even know where I'm editing? Also you'll revert anything I do even if it makes complete sense. Why would you revert me removing unsourced genres from an album? You literally find pleasure in reverting my edits. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Every article you have edited this morning has been a page I edited long before you and have more edits on than you. Do you know what a watchlist is? I guess you don't. Ignoring your attempts to start an argument, weren't you told by Ad Orientem to slow down and propose changes on the talk page if it's contentious? Recategorising/removing what is a single from which release is the definition of contentious. "Something Just Like This" has been noted as being released in promotion of the Kaleidoscope EP for years now and you're coming along in 2019 and changing it because you think I or some other editor told you singles can only promote one release when that's not true. There have been a number of instances where versions released differ from what's on the parent album—that doesn't mean the version released is not promoting the artist's recent album. In many cases you'll find even remix versions are considered singles from an album even if that remix version isn't on the album. Before making any of these edits in future, discuss them. Even if the album had a remix version and the single version was different. It's going to be disagreed with by somebody. Ss112 23:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought you were calling "Honest" a promo single when "The One" is. However, back to the issue here, removing what is a single from what is going to be contentious, especially if the article is years old and has been that way for years, so that should be proposed on the talk page. Ss112 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your edit to Charli XCX discography is exactly what I said above: An editor tells you one thing, and then you think the same should be done for every similar example. A "one size fits all" approach does not work and will not convince most editors on Wikipedia. It depends on the individual case. Just because of what happened on one article—"Something Just Like This" being a single from the Kaleidoscope EP—does not mean the same applies to every other example you can think of, because it is not the same for every individual single out there. You should not be trying to find examples of similar things when you've been reverted for something. Use the talk page to propose the change if you happen to come across a similar example. This approach of yours, where you get told one thing and go around to 10 different articles changing those to be in line with the one article you were reverted at and explained something about, is not a good approach. For the 10th time, slow down. Ss112 01:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Not what I was doing really. The article said it was a single from the album. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• You are still removing what you think are not singles. "Hummingbird Heartbeat" was removed as a single by a user in May without explanation, who has now been reverted. And so have you. You should know better by this point. Nobody said "Hummingbird Heartbeat" was a single because it charted low on a chart in South Korea. It was released to radio in Australia and was called a single in a cited source. You can discuss it if you have any further objections, which you should have done in the first place. Too many bold edits, not enough discussion. Ss112 18:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not my fault. The Teenage Dream page does not have the song listed as a single and the actual page for the song doesn't have a source of it being a single, other than the talk page. And I don't even know what you mean by "still" removing what I think are not singles.Billiekhalidfan (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it did—the Hummingbird Heartbeat article already contained a source calling it a single in the prose. Things don't actually need to be sourced in the lead per WP:LEADCITE, but I've added the ref name to the lead in case there's any future doubts. I also just explained to you that an editor who had previously been reverted for the same thing was just reverted by me at the Teenage Dream article, so the content is back there now. Also, you have already been warned by multiple editors for the same kind of thing. You know this, and I'm not going to explain it to you when you feign ignorance of the reasons you have all these warnings and messages on your talk page. Ss112 18:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Billiekhalidfan, stop competing with editors for the number of edits you can make to a page and having the current edit. I see no other reason for the number and frequency of edits you're making to the article for "Small Talk". You are deliberately taking issue with every little thing on an article. You already have a thread at ANI opened about you and you're still making contentious edits. Stop. And for the last time, slow down. I thought that perhaps you would have better things to do than quibble about every single little detail on whatever pop music article you want to focus on, but perhaps not. My patience with your edits is about depleted. In future, you will be reverted with no accompanying explanation beyond an edit summary. I was trying to help explain things to you here, but you have continued to disregard any and all advice given to you and just done what you like. Ss112 02:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well sorry. I was just trying to help with the article, we don't actually know that Puth is a writer or producer. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2019 (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 Reputation (Taylor Swift album), you may be blocked from editing. There is already an ANI discussion about you for this type of behaviour in which you change content to what you think it is. Not only that, you're ignoring what multiple editors have explained countless times to you. I know that you're still relatively new, but you seriously need to slow down. Calebh12 (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not change information on Wikipedia articles to support your own personal opinion, as you did on Tempo (Lizzo song). Articles on Wikipedia must contain a neutral point of view, and changing details of an article to support your own opinion qualifies as disruptive editing and can be considered vandalism. You may be blocked in the future if you continue these disruptive edits. Thank you. Gemsweater1 (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Please stop being rude. I obviously meant that there wasn't a cover art on the article so you could clearly see it was titled Pity Party EP. And I can't even see that link, I'm from the US.Billiekhalidfan (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There was no rudeness, I said it's "funny" that you would say that considering I easily found a link proving there's cover art for the EP. Your location doesn't mean you can't see it—use a proxy with a non-US server from a Google search for "proxy". It's easy—there's usually ways around geoblocking. Also, in reply to this, it's sensible to know at least a little about you're editing, especially if you're going to edit the article removing valid links because you don't know anything about the artist remixing another artist's song. It's got nothing to do with editing from a neutral point of view—it's knowing what you're talking about. Ss112 14:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: I saw you redirected my edit. What I was trying to fix was that in the chronology of Pity Party (EP) there are extra apostrophes next to the title. I don't know how to fix that.Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. But again, you have been told to slow down by at least four separate editors now, and you still haven't. Please stop thinking you need to edit for the sake of editing because that's what this looks like to everybody else. Please stick to what you know, because you have received two more warnings in the past several days from two other editors for not doing that. If you keep this up, I can assure you another admin, one who isn't Ad Orientem, will see this and block you. Ss112 14:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: You realize you're telling me to slow down on an edit made days ago, right? And it isn't nonsense, if you actually looked at the song cover and the song on any streaming service you would see the single version is titled "Saturday Nights Remix". The solo version is not a single either. And since you've said it to me many times, I guess it's okay to say: you're annoying. And don't you think you're wearing my patience out reverting everything I do with rude edit summaries, even when I'm correct. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah...of course you believe you're correct. That's why you'll probably end up blocked. Also, the cover art (that I uploaded on an article I started, by the way) says "Saturday Nights" in big text and "remix" in far smaller text underneath it. That's hardly definitive proof "Remix" is part of the song title beyond your own belief it is. Being called annoying by one of the most precocious and incorrigible newbie editors on music articles in some time who literally has an open ANI thread on them right now as well as a dozen editors on their talk page having told them in as many words that they are incredibly frustrating and annoying, that's bloody rich. Please have some self-awareness. Also, stop pinging me here to have a whinge every time you're reverted. There will be plenty more of that if you keep this up. I'm done having conversations with you. Ss112 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

It’s fine to use just one of the descriptors in most cases. You were explained otherwise in the case of Lil Nas X because he is an anomaly whose descriptor is a topic of controversy. Please keep this in mind.—NØ 22:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, and I wasn't making a point, 6lack's page lists rapper first. I was just comparing him to another artist who is listed as rapper and singer. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ariana Grande. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Fan4Life (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't vandalizing, and I don't need an Arianator claiming that on my talk page. Goodbye. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

You removed artists who are significant and notable to Ariana's career from the associated acts field without discussing it, that's unconstructive. Fan4Life (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Well there was a note that said they need to collaborate on at least 5 songs, two of those artists have not. Also, being "unconstructive" and "vandalizing" are not the same thing. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

They literally did the same thing to me. This "@Fan4Life: user literally thinks that they are the only one one who should edit the Ariana Grande page. Thanks. I'm simply adding this to my receipts in my complaint against you again @Fan4Life:

In the article, Reputation, you reverted my edit, and said, "It’s been discussed why Spotify singles doesn’t count.".

Where is this discussion? CountyCountry (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

This is being discussed in the section of the talk page called Next title. I personally am fine with it being included, but there is some disagreement so we'll have to wait for what other people have to say. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Template:Lover (album) track listing has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Billiekhalidfan! You created a thread called Discography at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread. Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) (ban this bot) or ((nobots)) (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

1. You've already been asked to stop arguing with users in edit summaries. This isn't going to help your already bad case. You being reverted by somebody doesn't require a smart-alec retort, which I think you thought would sound intelligent by taking me literally (when one would think you would sensibly assume "every other one" meant every other article you end up editing with this kind of approach), but really didn't at all—you mistook the total number of pages Wikipedia has (48 million) for articles with content (5.9 million), which is what matters around here. Try getting the applicable number right if you're going to take me literally.
2. No, what you're doing is not "learning", it's further evidence that you've disregarded being told to assess each article's situation individually, and not go around to other pop music articles and change those based on examples from other articles where you were already criticised for making heavily-handed changes instead of discussing them first.
3. Capitalising words is for emphasis in edit summaries, as there is no other way of doing so (e.g. by bolding or italicising). It absolutely does not have "no meaning". I would trust you would have figured this out on your own, but I guess not.
4. You are still speeding towards a block from a fed-up admin at this rate. Users who do not learn to stop making these kinds of edits are usually blocked when it's been raised to the community's attention enough. So don't be surprised when it happens. Ss112 14:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Just curious, just how long do we have to put up with this user, obviously "just don't care" or WP:CIR, either way let's do something. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m sorry but controversial changes like this (without discussion) are just purely disruptive and exactly the type of thing Billiekhalidfan is supposed to avoid. I personally just cannot defend him anymore. FlightTime, maybe it’s time to involve another admin or two since AO may have become too involved in this case to take action.—NØ 01:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Lil Nas X has no official credited features as of yet (his first feature ever was just announced for XXXTentacion's upcoming album). Don't readd "Billiejean$" to his discography. The artist falsely put "feat. Lil Nas X" in the title of their song to attract more streams. You can listen to the song and you won't hear the supposed feature. Thanks. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't going to re-add it. My bad, I thought it was a real feature. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

All good 👍 Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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, and seek consensus with them. 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic talk! 00:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 ~~~~)).  Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I intensely dislike blocking people, especially when they are obviously editing with good motives. But you need to slow down and start paying attention to the messages you are getting from experienced editors. Well intentioned or not, too many of your colleagues are finding your behavior to be chronically disruptive. Your ability to edit your talk page has not been revoked. I suggest you spend the next 24hrs contemplating your editing habits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Given you just came back from a 24 hour block, I'd suggest you truly begin looking at your editing behaviour, as it's becoming beyond borderline problematic. livelikemusic talk! 21:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: What vandalism? I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism is a strong word. What happened? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: I am also curious, could you please reply. Thanx, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 14:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

• Whoopsie. Was so tired last night I got things mixed up between this user and another user, and did not receive the previous ping; I do apologize. Let it be a lesson to not edit Wikipedia when you've been sleep deprived. I apologize, Billiekhalidfan, and truly hope there are no ill-feelings. livelikemusic talk! 15:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Livelikemusic for the clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the explanation. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Not 20 Anymore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jordan Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, is there are guideline that says all singles should be listed together in one category? [1], [2]. Lapadite (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know but it just doesn't make sense to separate solo singles and collaborative singles. In the discography they are all together, so why should it be any different for artist templates? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so it's your opinion. Since you haven't cited a guideline that recommends that format or sought consensus to change it, it should be kept as it was because it is helpful as an overview of solo singles and collaboration singles (in the meantime, before standalone articles are warranted). Some artist templates also separate promotional singles, but I don't find that necessarily useful. Lapadite (talk)

@Lapadite77: Well I don't see a guideline saying that the collaborations should be separate either, hon. If all singles as lead artist are together on the discography, then it should be no different on their template. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Lapadite77: And of course just completely ignore this because you know I'm right. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

This has always been an area where editors have disagreed. But what I gather from the documentation at Template:Cite web is: that the publisher field is for the companies that publish content and website is for the website on which it is published. If you read the Spotify article, it is clearly written about a company, not just the streaming service it offers. So I would put it as a publisher. But reading the Tidal article, it is about a service offered by Aspiro, so Tidal would be in the website parameter and Aspiro being the publisher. Likewise, Apple Music or iTunes Store should probably be in the website parameter, since the publisher would be Apple Inc.. But note that these aren't absolute rules, but just my interpretation.—NØ 22:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh. The only reason I changed it was because when it was a publisher the ref glitched but it's working now. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that glitch affected every page the template was used on, not just the Lover article. Seems to be fixed now.—NØ 23:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yo. What's the deal with this edit? One member of the band is in Radiohead, and another member is Radiohead's producer. They also have performed at least one Radiohead song. I sense there's some logic I'm missing here? Popcornduff (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Well the link I put in my edit summary says not to put bands with only one member in common; the only common member is Thom Yorke. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel the case here is a little stronger, at least, because of Godrich. I personally feel this might be an WP:IGNOREALLRULES situation, as it feels so profoundly counter-intuitive not to list Radiohead as an associated act when there's such crossover. Popcornduff (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bebe Rexha; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Are you out of your mind? First of all, you're the one edit warring. You added those and I reverted it so you don't add it again unless you reach a consensus. Second of all, the fact that you keep ignoring is that Rolling Stone never said anything about the genres you keep adding. And the fact that you're clearly looking at my contributions and reverting them is pretty sketchy. You've been at Wikipedia a long time, you should know better. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Billiehkalidfan, it would be nice if you could do edit summaries without all this. MaranoFan, you too. The edit summary should be about the edit; they are not running conversations. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Might I remind you this isn't stan twitter or a Wendy Williams show comment section. No need to be intentionally shady. I was directly (as page creator) responding to your request for me to "diy" something which isn’t mandated by any guideline whatsoever. Best believe that a double veteran editor doesn’t need a 5 month old account to explain edit summaries to her! You've been uncivil to Binksternet in the section almost right above this, so more shadiness doesn't bode well for you. Tone down the sassiness and take the several warnings you've been given by admins and experienced editors seriously.—NØ 04:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Then stop doing the same yourself. Pretty simple.. And the Binksternet section was because he kept adding genres not supported by the source given, I wasn't being uncivil, but ok.. If anyone's uncivil, it's you. And I think you do need a reminder of what an edit summary is because you seem to have forgotten on multiple pages. And yes, I would believe a double veteran editor wouldn't need a reminder but sometimes when you do a job for so long you just.. forget things. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

You initiated the conversation when you asked me to "diy" that pointless hidden note, stating you were "tired" of doing it. Sorry for the news flash, but that hidden note is not actual content. It’s something random that only a few people go around inserting in articles. Not mandatory whatsoever. I was completely in line responding to that in a follow up edit summary. Your essay-sized meltdown after that was unnecessary. This looks like straight up sarcasm since you're well aware about my knowledge of policies, stop wikilawyering.

Also please read WP:CIVIL, and avoid tossing out phrases like "What the hell" and "Are you out of your mind" to others. Since you're teaching policies now, it can be assumed that the newbie phase is over. Thus future misconduct will be directly raised with admins or on a relevant noticeboard. Have a good day.—NØ 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't telling you specifaclly to do it yourself, it was directed towards the person who added it. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Like, we get it, the saying is funny and it's a funny remix, but where's the notability of this song? Does it need its own article? I'm failing to see much to satisfy WP:NSONGS, and this long after it's been out, there should be something. It didn't chart, and it's not like many news articles were written about the song specifically. Ss112 01:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Ok but, in general, why does Wikipedia frown upon making articles for songs or albums that aren't "notable"? It can't hurt to have more information. I've had multiple songs/albums pages be redirected for not being notable and it confuses me why. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to jump in here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have policies and guidelines in order to prevent the place from getting cluttered with whatever someone thinks should be added. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Adam Joseph - And I Oop!.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) 02:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This is not a minor edit whatsoever. Do not mark significant removals of content as minor. You know better than this at this point. Also, you say the sources are "no longer needed" on the article. Why not? Where are they sourced then? This was not an explanation with an immediately obvious reason, and so I have restored sourced genres from a previous version to the infobox. Ss112 02:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Are you serious right now? Look at the revision history before reverting everything I do and you would see that I added a section in the article where they are sourced. They don't need to be sourced in infobox if they are already sourced in the article, see literally every musical artist article. I'm so sick of this. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC) My bad, I remember typing the "Musical style" section, I thought it was published but I don't know where it went. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The irony of telling me to look before reverting when you didn't do so yourself. How many times have you been told to slow down? Yet you still haven't, and are getting ever-more overconfident in reverting users when you believe you're right. Ss112 00:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: Actually, never mind. It is in the revision history. Wikipedia glitched and removed it somehow. The edit difference shows what I added, but it didn't publish correctly. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

States: "The credits to an album can be extensive or sparse. Some albums have credits for members of management teams, web designers, and artists and repertoire representatives who have little if anything to do with the creation of an album. Additionally, sometimes liner notes can have long lists of thank yous to individuals who were completely unrelated. These unrelated individuals should not be listed—only report musical and technical personnel who had some direct involvement in the creation of the recording or artwork itself." (emphasis added) This goes for songs as well, because there's no reason we would list A&R, legal or management "personnel" for a song but not for an album. Ss112 00:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't really know what A&R was so I thought they were credits. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 00:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Charli XCX, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Removing two sources that don't support the information is equal to blanking. Good one! Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Halsey discography; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring is reverting multiple times, I did it once. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring is not always reverting multiple times. Edit warring is a pattern of behaviour as well. Any administrator will tell you this. Perhaps you should stop arguing with editors more experienced than yourself and take notice of what they're saying. You've developed quite a bad attitude in your short time here—not a good look. Ss112 00:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

"Edit warring is not always reverting multiple times." Um, yes it is. Reverting something once is not an edit war. Binksternet literally wrote that edit warring "means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be". Last time I checked, doing something one time is not the same as doing something repeatedly. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

He didn't write it, it's what the template says. Every admin I've spoken to agrees edit warring does not always require multiple reverts, that's just what it is most of the time. Ss112 00:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that any edit in the history of Wikipedia is edit warring, since editing once is now considered an edit war. Makes so much sense! Billiekhalidfan (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I was saying at all. How you reached that conclusion speaks more to your ridiculous assumptions than anything else. Every edit isn't a revert, and obviously you ignored what I said above about it being a pattern of behaviour as well. For you, I would say your edits consi Your attitude, especially your constant sarcastic comebacks to everything, are really tiring. I guess you want to be here for a short time, not a long time. You're going to burn yourself out on Wikipedia or get permanently blocked, one or the other—trust me. Ss112 00:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and looking at the history of Charli XCX from September 11–14, that looks like a back-and-forth edit war between you and Binksternet as far as I'm concerned, and that's what it'd look like to anybody else too. Ss112 00:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I've typed this so many times because you keep messing it up by updating your message, but, if he wants to talk about my "pattern of behaviour", he is welcome to. No need to put the edit war template here. Not to mention the fact that he reverted my edit without an explanation, completely ignoring the note that says, "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only." And he's done this to my edits on other pages too. what an experienced editor! Billiekhalidfan (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Hayley Orrantia – The Way Out.jpeg. 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) 17:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't cite eBay like it's some legitimate retailer. Fans have mocked up copies of their favourite artists' singles and albums before and sold them on places like eBay. It's not unheard of, especially if they think they can get money out of it. We can't verify that those single cover artworks are the real deal. Same with Serban Ghenea's website—it's not unheard of for personnel like web designers to grab cover art they found somewhere on the Internet as an image for a single. Unless it came from someone more significant than the song's mixer, like Taylor herself or a retailer, it's dubious. Ss112 14:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Then there is also no way to prove that the track listings for the Brazil promo single of "Delicate" are legitimate. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Lana Del Rey, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. ilovetati91 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I actually did explain it. Also this shouldn't be at the top, it should be at the bottom because it is the most recent. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Red (Taylor Swift album), without providing a source or 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) 11:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter what your personal interpretation of a radio release is. Trainor tweeted out in her own words Genetics isn’t a single. Likewise you have to get consensus to move Better When I'm Dancin' to the singles section, the last discussion concluded it’s not one. Hope that is clear and you don’t resort to edit warring, and disrupting a featured list would be considered very disruptive.—NØ 13:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The page for the Peanuts soundtrack literally lists the song as a single. It doesn't need discussion, it was sent to radio so it's a single and that's that. Oh my lord. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

If people are disagreeing with something you are doing, then it needs discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

——

• And wait for articles to be moved to a new title before changing perfectly working links to them.—NØ 16:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, use WP:RMT for uncontroversial moves such as this one. And when uploading artworks/single/album covers, resize them to the dimensions 300x300 and the format png. That is the most high quality usage that is allowed.--NØ 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Ariana Grande discography. 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 losing your editing privileges.

Please be mindful of this; I know it is easy to get caught-up in the moment when it comes to editing, but it is not worth potentially being blocked because of it. livelikemusic talk! 16:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It may not have been your intention, but one of your edits, specifically one that you made on Red (Taylor Swift album), may have introduced material that some consider controversial. Due to this, your edits may have been reverted. When adding material that may be controversial, it is good practice to first discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them, to gain consensus over whether or not to include the text, phrasing, etc. If you believe that the information you added was correct, please initiate that discussion. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

No. The note said "discuss before removing", so you can't just ignore the note. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Red (Taylor Swift album), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Specifically, Template:Infobox album#Chronology and Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra chronology discourage using extra chronologies for situations like the article in question. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discuss before adding an extra chronology; it is advised to generally avoid extra chronologies for specific release types, per Template:Infobox album#Chronology. Per Template:Infobox_album#Template:Extra_chronology, extra chronologies are generally useful for split albums, collaborative albums, and a series of albums, NOT for ordinary studio albums like "Red". Thank you for listening. Dan56 (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Lana Del Rey, you may be blocked from editing. ilovetati91 (talk) 11 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetati91 (talk • contribs)

You've been on Wikipedia for six years and you don't know what a template is! Sad. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A sutdy sowehd taht olny 25% of poelpe can raed tihs. All you hvae to do is tkae the frsit and lsat lteter of a wrod and the raest can be ttolaly mxeid up in the wrod. The sduty siad taht the hmaun biran dnesot raed the wolhe wrod, but olny prat of it. If you are one of the 25% taht can raed tihs, put tihs in yuor usperpgae.

A study showed that only 25% of people can read this. All you have to do is take the first and last letter of a word and the rest can be totally mixed up in the word. The study said that the human brain doesn't read the whole word, but only part of it. If you are one of the 25% that can read this, put this in your userpage.

Done and done. Standardwikiman (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Please describe her properly... she's one of the most popular singer right now...so u must put it on the page Maliha Rashid (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kim Petras discography 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. bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I was restoring the original version, not edit warring. The other person added the incorrect album and then I reverted it. They should've stopped reverting it back. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they should, and they have been warned too. But so should you; you were most certainly edit warring and did in fact violate the bright-line three revert rule (unlike the other party who reverted three times but not more than that.) This is not the first time you have been warned about edit warring so you really need to follow the links explaining what it is, since it seems like you are still not quite clear on the concept. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I did not revert four times. This edit was the original edit in which was reverted. I reverted the other user three times after that. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. Look, I am not going to report you for this (though someone else might, especially if you maintain that you did not edit war) and it looks like your preferred version is more guidelines compliant -- but that does not matter! The only exceptions from 3RR are reverts of blatant vandalism, copyright violations or sockpuppet edits, and this is none of those. I understand that it is frustrating when other users stubbornly violate guidelines, but edit warring is not an option. --bonadea contributions talk 20:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I already warned him about reverting Camila's country of origin last night of her being a full blooded American citizen because on one of the descriptors he had typed involving Cuba not recognizing dual nationalities. If he continues doing this without communicating on talk, the risk of blocking him from contributions is imminent. Give me a round of applause Mr. Khalid.

Cheers,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Bea Miller Feel Something.jpeg. 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) 02:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

In less than a week your cross-wiki obsession with edit warring over genres has forced two pages into Full Protection. Trillfendi (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I was definitely not the problem on the Lana Del Rey page. A Lana fan was removing sourced content repeatedly as she didn't want her labeled as pop.. so I'm pretty sure she's the problem there. And looking at your talk page, you seem like a problem yourself. (Yelling and swearing at other users).. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I swear at anyone who comes on my talk page with pointless “bullshit” about revisions or content disputes I moved on from as soon as I made pressed Publish changes. If they want to turn my talk page into a battleground I’ll take it there; they can’t get mad at my response when they initiated something they could’ve just left alone. Many-a editors know that about my editing style by now. (But you can’t yell on the Internet by typing words, that’s nonsensical.) Yet problems don’t get barnstars for their work, do they, so I must be doing something right. The fact remains, first Red, now Lana del Rey. Both pages you were involved in have been full protected because you think you own pages you show any interest in then bark at people about going to the talk page about it, which you don’t even do after the third revert—a violation of policy you’ve been warned about multiple times. If you keep going like this you will end up getting blocked for months for long term abuse. Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:SHOUT typing in all capital letters is indeed yelling. And what users are saying on your page isn't "pointless bullshit" just because you don't like it. Someone leaves a template notice on your page, and your curse and shout at them. That's problematic. But about me, I don't think I "own" pages, but if someone removes content without an adequate explanation, yes, I'll revert it. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If someone has already reverted my edit and expressed that reason in the edit summary, there is no reason to tell me about why they think the insertion of correct quote context of a BLP a is “vandalism”, on my talk page. Pointless bullshit and a ridiculous waste of their time, and mine, so they get a GFY from me. An edit I was thanked for, oddly enough. If people are offended by the emphasis of all caps, as if the act bolding itself isn’t “shouting” on the Internet, they can go to Simple Wikipedia. But those things have never gotten me blocked (let alone several times) and multiples pages fully protected in the span of days, which is problematic of you, and your fellow sockpuppets. Going from page to page dictating what is what, undoing everything you don’t “like” or agree with, and never using the talk page to discuss it which you keep commanding people to do is disruption, and eventually the chickens are going to come home to roost for you. Without warning an administrator will just ban you. You may claim you’re “new” here, but you’ve been here long enough to know better. Next time you’ll just get sent to ANI. Trillfendi (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Trillfendi:

And that's on what? On period ! Full stop, however you like it!

Well said. Another official report may be in order to prevent further biased edits and continued vandalism. This user has been responsible for several locked pages due to feeling the need to assert their own preferences on the pages of artists that they don't like (and have admitted as much on recent talk page discussions). Ilovetati91 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Not biased nor vandalism, just going by the sources (which you remove for no reason). I am not asserting my preferences, and I never said I didn't like Lana Del Rey. Here you are making up statements.. again. When I said "Stop making stuff up as you are clearly a Lana stan who wants to pretend like she is alternative when she's literally pop," I didn't mean that in a negative way towards Lana. I meant that I'm tired of fans of artists (Lana, Halsey, Billie Eilish, Melanie Martinez, etc.) saying they are "alternative" when it's actually just pop. I was unaware that being a pop singer is some kind of insult or something.. You are the one being biased, as implied by another user (Talk:Norman Fucking Rockwell!#Pop), you are saying that the sources are referring to popular music when they literally said pop. Also, vandalism is editing in bad faith. Adding a sourced genre is not bad faith, whether you like it or not. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

user Billiekhalidfan admits they have an agenda above. Confirms biased editing. Report needed.

Why are you taking like a robot? Nothing you are saying makes any sense whatsoever. I have not committed any biased edits, that would be you. Remember when you were removing sourced genres Binksternet and I were adding to Lana Del Rey and calling it "vandalism". That's biased editing. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dua Lipa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital FM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, in case you were unaware, 90s's/00's nu-disco/French house (which this song takes production ideas from) is distinct from 70's/80's disco music. My concern is in big genre mislabelling on Wikipedia. Sites like Rolling Stone casually describe songs as "funky" and disco all the time, but I think Wikipedia should be more reliable. 2A02:C7F:3846:4500:8C5F:8CD6:B597:91BF (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a reliable source, your opinion is not. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 03:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm... cough cough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol. How is that uncivil? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I found it borderline rude. Politely pointing a user, who may or may not be familiar with our PAG to the relevant guidelines, RS CITE and V would have been less in your face. If that doesn't work then a formal caution on their talk page might be called for. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I find it borderline rude that this user thinks they can just change or remove genres to whatever they want, and then say they think "Wikipedia should be more reliable". My response wasn't that rude imo, it was just a statement. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

See the note I just left on their talk page. And while we are on the subject, perhaps take a look at WP:BITE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

4 months tomorrow..so, definitely more than a month. "Not actually partners. They've been messing around for like, a month."

https://people.com/music/shawn-mendes-reveals-when-he-and-camila-cabello-started-dating/

https://www.etonline.com/shawn-mendes-confirms-when-he-and-camila-cabello-first-started-dating-135349

https://www.capitalfm.com/artists/shawn-mendes/relationship-couple-july-4-dating-official/

JulieSanz (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware that my editing has not been disruptive. Many other songs that have been on the alternative charts cannot be properly classified as alternative. In addition, incorporating faint elements of a genre into one's music does not necessarily place them in said genre. Furthermore, please be aware of what constitutes a genre, as each has typically distinct elements. In this such case. The elements of the genre and elements of the artist's music do not fit together.

PCPLUM118 (talk) 23:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The source is called "Billie Eilish, Alanis Morissette, and Sinead O'Connor Are the Only Women Who Have Done This" and then says "In the long history of fierce females in Alternative rock, only three have topped the Alternative Songs chart from Billboard more than once as a solo artist." Removing the genre because you disagree that said artist is alternative rock is disruptive. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. BetterOfThatWay (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Where can I even start? I'm going to keep it as respectful as possible, even when it's hard when dealing with special specimen like you (trust me, it's not meant in a good way)

• You're talking about being blocked when you literally forced three pages into full protection because of your disruptive manner and you dare to come on my page, throwing shade? You think you better than me? 💀

The only time I've been blocked were because of you. Literally. I don't have any problem with any other editor with expect you. So if you have a problem with me, let's just solve it there. Wikipedia is no place for you to throw your temper tantrum on people for no reasons and it is no battleground. Don't you ever to stop to reflect on whether you are the problem or not? Because whenever our paths cross, you're always making the most of the situation to throw oil on the fire. Just stop it. You're saying that I'm engaging in a editing war when you're the one who's rushing to undo people edits for no reasons and then when I'm trying to let you know that I needed some time, you reverted my edit and bring the fact that I've been blocked? Are you serious? It's time to grow up and tell me what you want to tell me instead of making your sneaky comments in the edit histories? BetterOfThatWay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Finally, don't say anything. I'm raising the WP:ANI to make sure that this situation is solved by competent people. You sought for it? Then you will find it. 😜😉 BetterOfThatWay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Lol. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for changing the comma on Taylor Swift! Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! 18:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

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. --Obsuser (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Dua Lipa. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~)).  Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Can someone change the status box on my user page to offline? 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 03:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: My block should have expired by now but if I edit it says my block expires at "21:06, 14 November 2019". I'm confused. 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 01:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Your block expired about 14 minutes ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I know but I still can't edit. 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 01:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the precise message you get when you try to edit a page other than this one?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You should be able to edit now, but I believe the reason you could not edit was because you attempted to evade your block by editing logged out.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Well thanks. I didn't attempt to evade the block, but I did try to change my online status before the block ended. 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 02:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I see where you made that request on this Talk page and another editor did it for you, but did you try to do it with an IP first?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I don't believe your asertion that you did not try to evade your block. Regardless, in researching the issue, I found that you socked last August with Enteryourusername101 (talk · contribs · count). I warned you last May about creating another sock account, as you had done before. You violated that warning, so I have blocked you indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is kind of late, but I just wanted to say that I am guilty of sock puppetry. I was just sick of everything with this account and didn’t want to deal with it anymore, but that is no excuse. I am not asking to be unblocked right now, because what I did was wrong and I deserved to be punished. I guess I just want to say that I am guilty and I apologize for my actions. I’m not sure right now if I will (attempt to) return in the future, but I am going to take a break from Wikipedia first, and then we'll see what happens. Happy holidays. 𝔹𝕚𝕝𝕝𝕚𝕖𝕜𝕙𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕕𝕗𝕒𝕟 ^💬 15:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Bea Miller – It's Not U It's Me.jpeg. 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) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)