Medxvo

February 2023

Please stop editwarring on Grammy Award for Album of the Year. I have reverted your edits. There is virtually no reason to be overusing a specific image where is an abundance of images, including recent ones. Your continued, unreasonable disruptive edits may result in you losing your editing privileges. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 10:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not using a specific image. I have used one image for the most recent recipient section, and another one for the achievement section. What you are saying only means that you don't even look at my edits before reverting them. Please, at least, look at the page before editing anything. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is February 2024 by the way! Medxvo (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I know what I'm talking about. You're using the same image that's already been used in the infobox of Swift's biography. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:IMAGEUSE policies. Minimal use of an image is advised. Your continuous abuse of reverts on that page is not acceptable. ℛonherry☘ 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it advised, or is it a must? Anyways, You should've just changed the image. My problem was your caption, not the image. You are changing everything by writing her achievement in the infobox instead of who is the most recipient, by doing so, her achievement will be gone next year when there is a new recipient. I fixed the problem in my last edit. Please stop harassing and following me, you are tracking my edits and changing them purposely and you just did so with the Jack Antonoff edit. You added a citation needed for my phrase and didn't do the same for the 1989 phrase which is exactly the same phrase as mine. You are tracking and harassing me personally. This is not constructive in any manner. Medxvo (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"You should've just changed the image. My problem was your caption." Then you have changed the caption alone. I do not have any problem with the caption. You should have not simply reverted the image again and again. I have been editing Jack Antonoff way before you even had an account. You are free to check that article's edit history for my contributions. I am strongly against harassment, so please do not throw around words to see what sticks. Please try to communicate your intention better next time. Do not simply revert contributions. That's unconstructive and quite simply annoying to those trying to better the article. If you had reverted something you did not want to revert fully, then at least make another edit to partially restore the content you don't have a problem with. Let's work together. Collaborate with your co-editors. That's all I can say. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"Then you have changed the caption alone". If I had done that, I would have had to write the achievement section all over again as well as change the caption, because the achievement section is not written in your edit. All of that because you don't want to just simply change the infobox image of my edit and you keep reverting to your edit, wanting me to change basically everything. I was not "simply reverting contributions". Your edit did not have the achievement section and the caption needed to change in my opinion. The fact that you've been editing "before I even had an account" does not add any credit to you. This is a form of bullying towards new contributors. You haven't edited Jack Antonoff in ten months, and you edited for the first time since then just after my first time editing there. It is a strange coincidence if you are not actually following and harassing me personally. Please stop tracking me, and if you have a problem with an infobox image just change the image, don't simply remove other contributions on other parts of the article just because you want to change the image alone. That's all I can say. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

"I would have had to write the achievement section all over again". Yes, you have to. Your laziness is not Wikipedia's problem. You shall only revert prose that you want to revert. Not revert everything just because it's comfortable. Do not even edit if you cannot follow some of Wikipedia's most basic editing policies. Coming to Jack Antonoff, your argument holds no talking points supported by Wikipedia. I'm an editor of Jack Antonoff, the page is in my watchlist for years, and I added a maintenance tag to a sentence that was *recently added* and had no citation. Everything is justified. Adding one citation to one sentence to an article I've edited before and have on my watchlist will never be "harassing". Maybe next time add a citation and stop adding unsourced content. Good luck. ℛonherry☘ 05:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not the lazy one when you are the one who is reverting my whole edit when your problem is with just one image. "You shall only revert prose that you want to revert. Not revert everything just because it's comfortable. Do not even edit if you cannot follow some of Wikipedia's most basic editing policies." It's been 5 days and you are still blaming me for reverting and you still can't get that you kept reverting when you only wanted to change the image. This does not make any sense and the conversation is going nowhere. I was not editwarring in the article. If everything was okay with my edit except the image, you should've changed the image alone. Let's work together instead of calling each other lazy. The problem with the article has been discussed and solved days ago. Let's stop here. I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative. Medxvo (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

"Citations not needed for the lead"

While you are correct in saying that citations aren't necessary in the lead [1], they are necessary if said content in the lead is not sourced in the body. Leads should generally be a summary of the body but as you've been editing since 2022 I trust you know this is not always the case. I hope you are being careful to make sure the citations you are removing in the leads of articles are not for content that isn't mentioned later in the article. Ss112 08:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead single was mentioned in the article with a provided source. The announcement and release weren't mentioned but they were referenced on the third and fifth references. I've added now a phrase about the announcement before the already-written reference. Thank you. Medxvo (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not talking specifically about that album; I only linked that to refer to what you said in the edit summary, which is vague. I am talking about in general you should know that not all articles that have sources for statements in the lead have those same statements present and sourced in the body. There's also no guideline against including citations in the lead, so there's no imperative to remove all examples you can think of. Ss112 14:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the sources from the lead in that album because they were mentioned in the article, except that the announcement and release details themselves weren't mentioned so I told you that I added a phrase about it after seeing your message to make the sources more notable in the article, and I thanked you for pointing that out. I know that in general citations can be included in the lead if it's not stated in the article itself. But in the case you're talking about, they were not necessary in my opinion, the lead single details and the sources of the lead single and album release date were already written in the article. When I said Citations not needed for the lead I meant the citations that I have removed, not citations in general. And I don't think that I have removed all the examples I could think of, unless they were unnecessary in my opinion. Thank you. Medxvo (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Album recording dates

Hello, thanks for this edit. Could you please add the sources you said (MySpace) for the Dec 2007 and Sep 2008 dates, either to infobox or to the prose? Currently the only source for the recording dates of Fearless (Rolling Stone dated Oct. 2008) wrote, "Swift spent nearly eight months in Nashville studios recording 50-plus new songs", so if you could not add further sources for verification we'll have to remove the information. Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Same issue for Red btw. Ippantekina (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I can share these links with you here (I am not quite sure if you can add them as sources for the article), as fans collected all of her MySpace posts on a blog, I can share the links of the exact dates.

December 2007 posts and September 2008 posts

You can find the December 5, 2007 post when she says she was at the studio planning for the album, and on December 23 she says she has been recording all month.

She says on September 25, 2009 that she recorded Forever & Always the other day as the final song and finished recording all of the 13 tracks, on September 30 she says they already started working on the CDs, etc. That means the album is 100% finished.

For Red, all of information were from her Lover Journal which has her handwriting on it. You (or anyone interested) can buy the journals and can find them, as I have already provided the dates of each event. Medxvo (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Can't you add the Lover Journal ref because you have it while I don't? It's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for the information you add and not mine. "You (or anyone interested)" is just irresponsible. Ippantekina (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

There is probably a misunderstanding. I have the journals, that's why I said you can buy them if you want. I don't have their pdf and I do not know if they exist and this is a form of piracy that I do not want to be part of. I provided the exact dates of her handwritten pages which should be easily accessible to anyone who has the books, it is not my responsibility to buy the journals for anyone interested. This is similar to "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of [an album]". We don't buy the physical editions for everyone just because they are interested in seeing the credits themselves. Please tell me how to help more and I can help, I am not being irresponsible.

Also for the Fearless one, I have found an Buzzfeed article which used a part of her September 25, 2008 post, here, which actually used another fan blog as a source (!) that posted her post here and the September 30 post here. Some of fan tweets with a screenshot of the original post, here and here. Sadly the screenshots are cropped and do not have her name on it, but they have the date, time, comments & kudos count, etc.

These are the links of the original September 25 post and the September 30 post which are now deleted, I can't find their archive but they existed. I would love to know your opinion about these sources. Medxvo (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi

I had to make some drastic reverts on the instagram followers page. Unfortunately, the followers update has rolled back to 1 may, can you please bring it up to date again? Thanks Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. No problem, the numbers are updated now! Glad to help. Medxvo (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Replacing existing article text with a template

Noticed your recent edit here, but please don't do this. Per MOS:VAR, this is equivalent to a stylistic change, where you are picking one acceptable format over another acceptable format. This kind of decision making should be avoided unless you have a good reason to make the change, and if you do, be prepared to seek consensus on the article's talk page.

Also see a recent discussion about the use of this template you were using: Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose/Archive 1#Transclusion count. If you'd like to readdress the issue, please begin a new discussion at WT:FILM (or perhaps at Template talk:Rotten Tomatoes prose as an alternative). Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello. For that article, I thought the template's wording was better than the already-existing sentences and their citations. The user (Nyxaros) who first added the reviews was engaged in an edit war recently about the reception wording, can be seen here. I agree with most of what the user (Adamstom.97) said there about the problems with (Nyxaros)'s sentence wording. I did not want to change the wording of (Nyxaros)'s sentence at the Queer article to not engage in an edit war like what happened at the Rings of Power article, so I thought using the template would be a much better option. The template has been used in multiple articles lately that have been promoted to GA and it is available to be used, in my opinion using it there would solve multiple problems. When (Nyxaros) reverted my edit, I tried to start a discussion at their talk page and understand what is exactly the problem with using the template, but they were not collaborative at all. Anyhow, thanks so much for the information that you provided. Very much appreciated! Medxvo (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, but keep in mind that a discussion for consensus at one article's talk page does not necessarily impact a decision at another article. Each article may have to go through a similar process, and is it really worth it? No, probably not. We also have a guideline, MOS:VAR, that says editors should not be tinkering with styles that are acceptable. Changing from acceptable text to an acceptable template is considered tinkering (and vice versa).

More importantly, as soon as you are reverted, it is best to begin a discussion on the article's talk page instead of restoring your preferred version (your comments at the article's talk page won't be deleted, BTW). The back and forth is not productive and can lead to edit warring. The sooner you resort to discussion, the better. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For the MOS:VAR, in my opinion, (Nyxaros)'s reception wording style is not the ordinary style that should be "acceptable". It is a much different wording than the one used on the RT template or in other articles in general. Per MOS:VAR, Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted. I don't think that their wording style is a consistently applied style. The wording "and the average rating was [...]" is not a consistently applied style in Wikipedia articles.

Per WP:ROWN, If someone reverts your change without apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's talk page or your user talk page, or contact the editor and ask for the reason for their revert. Following the revert, I did try to "contact the editor and ask for the reason for their revert" on their own talk page, but they were not collaborative and did not give any apparent reason for the revert and deleted the section from their talk page. When they did that, I restored my version. The user does not want to resort to discussion. I do not think that there is a solution for that unless they want to discuss, and I will not force them to do that.

As you said, it is probably not really worth it. However, thank you for trying to help! Medxvo (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

This will likely be my last comment here, but realize that this all boils down to a content dispute, making discussion on the article talk page all the more important once a disagreement becomes apparent.

It may be debatable as to what one editor perceives as "consistently applied" vs. another editor, and when that portion of the guideline hits a stalemate, the other key phrase takes over: "acceptable". If there's nothing inherently wrong with the phrasing, then it is generally considered acceptable, therefore requiring a good reason to replace it on whim – certainly in situations where editors are reverting one another back and forth.

Also, WP:ROWN is just an essay. You'd be better off adhering to WP:EPTALK, which is policy. Secondary measures include WP:BRD or one of the options under WP:BRB, which are often linked from policy. User talk pages can occasionally work but often fail in contentious situations. Efforts there should not be considered a substitute for using the article talk page. Good luck. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

There was something inherently wrong with the phrasing, including the phrase "and the average rating was [...]", which suggests that the average rating is not related to the reviews' percentage. The wording is wrong and not consistently applied, so, to prevent any edit warring or discussions, like what happened at the Rings of Power article, I thought (and still think) that using the RT template is the best option in this situation. Now, was there any reason to completely revert my edit? I asked them that question, with no apparent answer. Per WP:DOREVERT, WP:DONTREVERT, and WP:TWABUSE, reverting should not be the first option, especially when the edit is not making the article clearly worse.

What I was talking about from WP:ROWN, is the same as WP:BRD. Per WP:BRDD, I can still use the editor's talk page to start a discussion. Is it a "must" to only use the article's talk page to talk to them? If I use their talk page, they can reply there. If they don't want to reply there and won't even move it to the article's talk page (or ask to move it), then I do not think that this is my problem. I will not force them to reply and collaborate. If they tried to collaborate and reply and not delete my section without solving the problem, there wouldn't be any contentious situations. Medxvo (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You do have good points. The problem with bold edit strategies like BRD is that they depend on the willingness of BOTH editors (or both opposing parties) to improve the article and work toward a solution. If one side is dug in or seems unwilling to discuss, these strategies are likely to fail, as outlined at WP:BRD#Use cases.

The one approach that every editor can take regardless of the situation, is to make a good faith attempt to discuss on the article talk page, where you can explore multiple avenues of escalation (e.g., WP:3O, discussion notices at WikiProjects, WP:RFC, etc.) as mentioned at WP:DR. Either side can take the initiative, but before moving up the ladder of escalation, others reviewing the situation will expect that discussion was first tried on the article's talk page. But you are correct, reversion shouldn't be happening without good reason either. That can come into play later on. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I specifically ask everyone not to open discussions about article issues on my talk page (as stated at the top of the page). When you don't even follow this basic decency, in addition to not providing a valid reason for your edits, not following WP:BRD, and claim that I've reverted your revision because I don't like it and don't discuss, you become the problem. ภץאคгöร 07:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

When you reply to the discussion that I started without saying anything about not wanting discussions on your talk page, that indicates that you don't have a problem opening a discussion there. Also, per WP:OWNTALK, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. [..] Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.

I was the one who came to ask for a reason for your edit, why would you revert the question without even answering it? I was waiting for an answer to your edits; then, we could've discussed it. I asked you if it is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and asked you to clarify more. The answer to that should not be deleting the section, you can reply, discuss, and give your reasons. I do think that I was following WP:BRD, since I came to your talk page to discuss it when I saw your revert. But were you following WP:BRD, when you deleted the section from your talk page without replying and without moving it or asking to move it? Medxvo (talk) 09:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It does not indicate anything. If you want to send messages about other users, you have to follow what they specify for their talk pages. I responded to you despite your blatant disregard and rudeness, but cleaned it up afterwards. There were short and then long explanations as to why the revision was reverted. You haven't even given a valid reason for the change, other than to claim that you "fixed" it. There was nothing fixed, as stated in the above and previous messages, and you collected the reviews in one paragraph for no reason. The onus was on you to follow WP:BRD, so it was up to you to open the discussion on the article's talk page in the first place, but you didn't do that. ภץאคгöร 16:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OWNTALK clearly states that the user's talk page should be used to discuss the edits of a user, WP:BRDD also states that it can be used. I came to your talk page to discuss your edits; nothing is wrong with that.

I responded to you despite your blatant disregard and rudeness; this was my message–Hello. Can I know the reason for this revert please? What exactly was the problem with the edit? Regards. Can you please tell me where is exactly the blatant disregard and rudeness in this? my next reply was a reply to your response, and I still asked you to clarify more with regards, and all you did was delete the section.

If you wanted to know the reason for my change, you should've asked me on any talk page before or after reverting my edit, but since you didn't, and I asked, then you had to explain your revert, and we could've talked about it.

It was up to me to open a discussion on any talk page as per WP:BRDD and WP:OWNTALK, and you have to be collaborative and reply and not delete the section. Medxvo (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't up to you to disregard other editors' talk page rules. No one has to respond to this rudeness in defying these (again, as I mentioned above, thanks to you I have to keep repeating myself). Anyone can delete discussions on their own talk pages. AND there are edit summaries to explain yourself, you should have explained yourself there as there is no necessity for anyone to ask you to explain it (no one is going to follow you, you have to explain yourself and provide a valid reason first), but you still haven't provided a valid reason both in the edit summaries and in these messages. Unlike you, I and one other user provided reasons for the revert. Carefully read the guidelines and policies first, instead of making such unnecessary digressions. ภץאคгöร 10:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Your edit summary "not a fix" is not an explanation and not a valid reason, so maybe you should say this advice to yourself. The user (GoneIn60) thankfully provided a reason indeed, but you did not :) Medxvo (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

And if you really think the issue is the "the average rating was" part, you would have changed only that part and indicated it in your edit summaries etc. You just wrote something like template usage is preferred as a reason, which is completely untrue. I was writing that wording myself years before the templates were created, but as you can see, I don't just use the template every time. In the Rings of Power discussion, the user and I came to an agreement for a better wording, and your linking doesn't help with your comments and your claims about me. ภץאคгöร 08:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"I don't just use the template every time"? Why wouldn't you just use a constantly applied wording (which in this case; could be the template wording) to prevent any discussions about your wording? The template usage is preferred indeed if there is a problem with your wording that has been discussed with you but you still want to use it in other articles. I tried to start a discussion with you to come to an agreement for a better wording eventually, but nothing happened. Medxvo (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

This makes no sense. There can be more than one "better wording" and the messages above apply (picking one acceptable format over another acceptable format etc.). ภץאคгöร 16:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Your format has a problem and it was discussed with you that it has a problem. But you still went on and used it on other articles, when the template already exists and using it would obviously solve multiple problems since there were discussions about your format. When I came and tried to discuss the matter with you, I did not mind trying to come to an agreement for a better wording, but I wanted to know the reason for the revert and your problem with the template, first. Anyhow, I do not think it is my problem that you are not trying to be collaborative and discuss your actions with other users, so I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative since the conversation is going nowhere. Medxvo (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Where do you come with these fabrications? No one said my format had a problem, but I and another user have already told you (again, see above) that there is a problem with yours. If you are talking about the Rings of Power situation, it is entirely different than this subject/wording and we've come to an agreement already (as I stated above). Do you think I want to respond to these fabrications instead of actually discussing the wording? This will by my last reply here. ภץאคгöร 10:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem with mine how when it is literally a template? Yours is not a template, it is a manually written style that has a problem that has been discussed with you but you still decide to use it. The Rings of Power situation is NOT entirely different at all, at both of the situations you decided to use "and the average rating was […]" which is a wrong wording style. Medxvo (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Join discussion?

Hello, I was hoping you could join or respond to the discussion I started at Talk:Sabrina Carpenter discography#Because I Liked a Boy discussing the single status of Sabrina Carpenter's "Because I Liked a Boy". Thank You. Leafs33 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I replied there now! Glad to help. Medxvo (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)