User talk:Nice4What: Difference between revisions

Archives

April 2018 - April 2019

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sunday Service Coachella performance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DMX (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) 12:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:? Deluxe Anniversary Edition cover.png. 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, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ? (XXXTentacion album); 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) 16:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I will revert it back to what the original condition of the article was and you can make your case on the talk page. Does that sound alright? Nice4What (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Supermarket (Logic 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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. StaticVapor message me! 04:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@STATicVapor: Since bringing the matter to the talk page, I haven't tried to put anything back into the article. I've been restoring a {{Disputed inline}} tag that was removed from the lead, which is important since it's marking what's at dispute. It links to the discussion on the talk page. I am almost certain this is an exception to 3RR, so maybe you should look into the edit history a bit closer. Nice4What (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you restoring the dispute tag was wrong, but it is not an exception to 3rr. StaticVapor message me! 23:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for uploading the cover art, but the cover you uploaded is clearly a blurry, low-quality rip from somewhere...I can't imagine you got it from an official source. It has been replaced with a PNG from iTunes now, as 300×300 PNGs are preferred, so in future, it'd be a benefit to you to convert your files to JPGs lest another editor replace them elsewhere. Ss112 18:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Igor (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. StaticVapor message me! 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just want to make it clear you are at or above 3 reverts on the page today. StaticVapor message me! 21:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that constitutes edit warring beyond a simple error that could be excused rather than giving a warning. I've also been reverting unsourced vocalists if that's what you're seeing. Nice4What (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is because you have to be "warned" for a block to occur if you go over 3 reverts. WP:3RR is pretty clear just read it.. StaticVapor message me! 23:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nice4What reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: ). Thank you. StaticVapor message me! 21:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note WP:BLANKING. StaticVapor message me! 22:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weird excuse but alright. Would rather an actual response from you. Nice4What (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I don't know if you moved the above Take That song following a consensus discussion (which would have been a good idea) or if it was your choice, but either way, the name is wrong... it should be Rule the World (Take That song), not "single", per Wikipedia naming conventions. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But the page wouldn't let me move to Rule the World (Take That song) since that page already existed as a redirect. Nice4What (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have followed the procedure at WP:RM#CM – you'll probably have to do that now anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's going to be no opposition to the move, so it'll be sorted out soon. I think you were right to try and add the disambiguator back to the song again, but if you come across a technical problem like a redirect in the way again, it's best if you ask for help at WP:RM next time. :-) Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		I want to thank you for your efforts in promoting civil discourse as part of the heartbeat bill "abortion survivor" discussion. I think that everyone involved did a good job at trying to peacefully resolve the dispute, but that you in particular went above and beyond. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And on a related note, thank you for your reply to my question about political engagement in the US. It's interesting to know that meeting your politicians is so widespread. You always hear that "reach out to your Congressman and let them know you (support Bill A) or (oppose Bill B)" on social media, but I didn't think many people actually did that. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Here is an article you might find interesting that might guide you in the debate about whether or not "abortion survivor" is a neutral term."

Thank you for providing a teachable moment. I'm glad you brought up Annalisa Merelli's article; it was brought to my attention months ago, because it is factually incorrect.

Merelli's article says "the bill peddles the false narrative that abortions happening later in pregnancies could result in live babies left to die by physicians who fail to provide care that would otherwise keep them alive and healthy. This is not a practice that exists". Merelli is apparently unaware of – or worse, wants to suppress – the facts about registered nurse Jill Stanek.

After Stanek was told that an infant who had survived an abortion had been taken to a "soiled utility room" and left to die, she comforted the infant in her arms until it died. After Stanek complained about the policy of not providing medical care to infants who had survived abortions, the hospital stopped using the soiled utility room, and created a "comfort room" in which viable infants who survived abortions were left to die. After Stanek continued to oppose the policy, and took pictures of the "comfort room" and distributed them, she was fired. This experience is what spurred her to support Illinois' Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. Although Barack Obama (an Illinois state senator at the time) opposed the Illinois Act, during the 2008 presidential campaign his position evolved; he said that had he been a member of the U.S. Senate at the time, he "would have been completely in, fully in support of" the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which was identical to the Illinois act, and received unanimous approval in the U.S. Senate in 2002.

How often did this particular hospital's comfort room get used? Stanek's former employer typically performs only 15 to 20 labor-induced abortions out of more than 4,000 deliveries each year. Of the 15 to 20, only possibly four or five babies are born alive.^[1]

Merelli also seems to be in denial that the governor of Virginia recently stated that withholding such medical care should be an acceptable practice, if so decided by "a discussion between the physicians and the mother."

Annalisa Merelli goes on to say, "An abortion is performed with the intention of ending a pregnancy, so there are no survivors." What kind of logic is that? The Easter Sunday bombing of St. Anthony's Shrine was performed with the intention of killing everyone inside, so by Merelli's twisted logic, there are no survivors. I'm sorry to inform you; there are in fact survivors of that and similar bombings.

I doubt these facts will change your mind. You seem very stubborn, and hostile to editors who try to get you to incorporate facts into your worldview. Now that your cited criticism of the term "abortion survivor" has been shown to be factually incorrect and illogical, it's beyond common sense that "abortion survivor" is the most unbiased, neutral and straightforward way to refer to a person who has survived an abortion. You continue to display incredible bias when you promote the fiction that Gianna Jessen, Amy Charlton, Sarah Smith, Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Heidi Huffman, Christelle Morrison, Melissa Ohden, Claire Culwell and others did not survive the attempts to end their lives. As such, you have no business editing articles about abortion.Novel compound (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Igor album Marcus lyon (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC) @Marcus lyon: What's this? Nice4What (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Sharps Disposal in Trash by US State Map.svg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, were did you get this as a title from? I haven't seen any sources clarifying the next title of West's single. --Kyle Peake (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kyle Peake: It was announced by Irv Gotti who produced the song. Article here. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 22:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added the small font size to an article and then cite your own edit as a counterargument to MOS? This is not a valid rationale to revert my edit. If you have problem with the MOS, discuss it on the MOS talk page. Do not edit war to retain unnecessarily small font size, thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:DRC again, as you have misunderstood its meaning. You may not remove content (that is not a clear violation of Wikipedia policy) from someone else's Talk page, even if you put it there, without their approval, and if they restore it you may not remove it again. General Ization ^Talk 03:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization: I'm choosing to remove my own comments after they remove part of mine though? I don't want any message up without the full context. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stockpiling uranium is not a reaction to oman incidents
You should know that
And you should not remove america's name from suspects
It's suspects
It doesn't say perpetrators