User talk:Camilasdandelions

Hello Arismauve! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that the image you uploaded was deleted. This is because it is not a free image. Free images are public domain images, or images that the creator has licensed under certain Creative Commons licenses. See this for more information. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please refrain from vandalising and edit warring on Wikipedia pages such as Saved My Life. Use the talk page for discussing edits. Thanks — Peterpie123rww (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to I Forgive You (Sia song). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so if i have more information about "I Forgive You", just click "Submit your draft for review!"? I'm first at wikipedia, and also im korean so i can't understand everything well. i'm sorry Arismauve (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can i use source of this link?

https://sia.fandom.com/wiki/I_Forgive_You

https://genius.com/Sia-i-forgive-you-lyrics

but in many wikipedia pages, there are no sources abt the Producers like them. but should I put sources on there? Arismauve (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the future, both Fandom wikis and Genius (apart from interviews) are not considered reliable sources, since they are user-generated like Wikipedia. For commonly used sources, check this page, but for the sake of editing, I would start by sourcing newspapers and other music publications instead. Happy editing! Isthmus55 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for this. i really need this comment. i'll try to use newspaper sources like billboard or rollingstone. Arismauve (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheChineseGroundnut was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:I Forgive You (Sia song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

@T.C.G. [talk] 15:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arismauve! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! @T.C.G. [talk] 15:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colour the Small One cover.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colour the Small One deluxe cover.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Colour the Small One cover.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) 17:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information. Stop making excuses for turning a blind eye to parts of chronologies. It isn't productive in the slightest. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinda shame of you to see that you are calling all version you wrote is always correct and other's (including mine) aren't. Please stop spreading fake informations in Wikipedia, what you wrote doesn't make senses, because it doesn't provide any reliable sources. And also, you still aren't providing any evidence that 143 is seventh yet. Please stop vanadalizing Katy Perry's documents, just please send me any "official" website's links which are saying that 143 album is 7th. Thanks. Camilasdandelions (talk) 04:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reasonable. We both know I've already given more than enough trustworthy evidence to prove 143 is seventh. You just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it with your WP:IDHT responses, and deflecting this by falsely accusing me of vandalism and "spreading fake informations" doesn't help your case. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You gave BBC and YouTube. And you claimed my evidence, which is from Katy Perry's label official store, is WRONG. You denied my all evidences too..

I requested you many times to provide Katy Perry's official site or her store or her label or her SNS etc's evidences. BBC, or Billboard etc anything are not reliable than Katy's announcements. Dismissing Katy Perry's official announcement could be wrong is not making you advantageous. Camilasdandelions (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link I gave with her flat out acknowledging a self-titled album as first and thus having seven albums so far should've been sufficient already. It's a cheap cop-out and grasping at straws to suggest anything outside of her website can't be used. She wasn't engaging in cherry-picking of chronology like you blatantly have been. I don't know why that discrepancy with the store hasn't been fixed accordingly, but it regardless is still deceptive to call that her sixth. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nothing but your opinion. I suggested that to say "143 is seventh but most of places call her 143 as sixth, but according to YouTube (that you provided) it is seventh" in references. But you didn't reply me at all. I strongly refuse to just remain 143 as seventh, without her official sites. Camilasdandelions (talk) 06:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You very well know what I wrote was not merely my own opinion, whether you admit it or not. As for that proposed note, I wasn't initially sure what to say about it, so that's why I didn't respond to it right away. While some initial articles may have been more slanted towards six, those giving seven for a count seemed to increase in quantity as the release date grew closer, and I overall have seen a roughly equal amount for each. If one were to subtract all publications deemed untrustworthy for general factual accuracy of things beyond this subject matter, then I'm not so sure there would still be a majority. Either way, your open refusal to accept only using seven further proves me right about you being stubborn. Remember that a sheer number derived from Google searches lumps together both good and bad sources. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:59, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:E.T. single cover.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 03:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 16:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 16:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zara Larsson - VENUS (Vinyl Cover).jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Adele - 19 (Deluxe).jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Legend of 14 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll remember this! Camilasdandelions (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pretty Hurts, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You have not provided a reliable source that claims the song was leaked. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mayhem (Lady Gaga album). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thanks Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mayhem (Lady Gaga album). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. livelikemusic (TALK!) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Camilasdandelions. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Words Birdy.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:GNG as well as WP:NSONG. "Words" fails notability on both counts, so a stand-alone article on it is unwarranted. Accordingly, I have turned the page back into a redirect. The alternative would be to nominate the page for deletion, which might also delete the redirect.

Additionally, please review WP:Vandalism, and particularly what vandalism is not. Unfounded, inappropriate accusations of vandalism can be dealt with as personal attacks. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Piano Sketches. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Intraspectral. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Piano Sketches 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/Piano Sketches 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 until the discussion has finished.

Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal the 1-day block on my account. I understand that the block was issued due to edit warring. I acknowledge the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and regret any inconvenience my actions may have caused.

However, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding. My intention was not to disrupt the editing process but to clarify the information in the article. I now understand that this could have been perceived differently, and I will ensure to follow proper dispute resolution processes in the future.

I kindly ask you to consider lifting the block, as I value contributing constructively to Wikipedia and will strive to prevent any such incidents moving forward.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't want to hear from a bot, we want to hear from you directly. Please write your request without the aid of an AI. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

At first time, I couldn't figure out why people changed file that I uploaded to others file. At that time I was upset because no one explained about that. Also, Gaga's MAYHEM album is treated as seventh solo studio album, and I have tried to persuade people about this, but people didn't care. Next time, I'll try to use discussion page to prevent edit war.

Decline reason:

Not a bad unblock request, but I suggest you read WP:V and WP:NOR. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have moved your unblock request to the bottom of the page. Please place future requests at the bottom. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intraspectral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Album of the Year. 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) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Intrasepctral.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you get blocked for being disruptive and edit warring and what do you do when your block expires? You immediately resume the same behavior that got you blocked. Using an edit summary to refer users to an ongoing discussion is not adequate. There doesn't appear to be a consensus, yet you unilaterally decided to implement your preferred version. That's not how it works. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jauerback I didn't try to make disruptive edit. Yes I'll be honest, I did 2-3 times, but let alone it's very frequent happening for my think, my main purpose of it was to persuade people by telling them to join discussion, because no one has replied to me on Lady Gaga's article discussion page. So I left similarbmessages in edit summary, such as "If you disagree, please check that discussion". And most people didn't change my edit after that. But why I'm blocked? I still can't figure it out why I'm blocked, as I didn't do disruptive edit for 10-20 times like before. Also, I tried to be careful my best, so that's why I was struggling to persuading people to join on my recent discussion in edit summary. Even more, I still don't get it why "Using an edit summary to refer users to an ongoing discussion" is not adequate. Is there any criteria of it? Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out WP:REVTALK. As you must be aware from reading the commented notice within the article text itself, the issue of the sequencing of these albums has already been discussed extensively. Because of this, some editors may not wish to reengage in the same discussion. While it is true that consensus can change, the onus is on you to build that consensus, not on other editors to respond to you. Lastly, please be aware that contentious claims need to based on secondary sources, rather than what the artist herself has said. You can review past discussions to find examples of reliable independent sources that editors have used in the past to support their arguments. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I've read WP:REVTALK criteria thanks to Wikipedia user. As I'm new and unfamilar at Wikipedia, I didn't be aware of some main criterias.

Next time, when I have to write edit summary, I'll try my best to use proper messages on edit summary. Moreover, I'll try to be careful not to redo disruptive edits on Wikipedia.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=:I've read [[WP:REVTALK]] criteria thanks to Wikipedia user. As I'm new and unfamilar at Wikipedia, I didn't be aware of some main criterias. :Next time, when I have to write edit summary, I'll try my best to use proper messages on edit summary. Moreover, I'll try to be careful not to redo disruptive edits on Wikipedia. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=:I've read [[WP:REVTALK]] criteria thanks to Wikipedia user. As I'm new and unfamilar at Wikipedia, I didn't be aware of some main criterias. :Next time, when I have to write edit summary, I'll try my best to use proper messages on edit summary. Moreover, I'll try to be careful not to redo disruptive edits on Wikipedia. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=:I've read [[WP:REVTALK]] criteria thanks to Wikipedia user. As I'm new and unfamilar at Wikipedia, I didn't be aware of some main criterias. :Next time, when I have to write edit summary, I'll try my best to use proper messages on edit summary. Moreover, I'll try to be careful not to redo disruptive edits on Wikipedia. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to agree not to edit any articles about Lady Gaga or her work and to confine your contributions to talk page discussion? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'll try to discuss with people about Lady Gaga's chronology before I change, in Lady Gaga discussion page. (Also there's a user talk page that I already opened)

But I want to make sure that how does Wikipedia define "discussion is resolved". (e.g., "No valid objections come out within 24 hours after the time of rebuttal", or "most of people should agree".) Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "No valid objections come out within 24 hours after the time of rebuttal" is consensus. On the other hand, if most people agree, you have a rough consensus, and can go ahead and edit the article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "no valid objections?" There are already objections to the changes you propose in the discussion that you reference. Do you perceive these objections as invalid? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't say people said are invalid, these are just example of other wikis' criteria.

Then what situations can be defined as 'consensus'? Camilasdandelions (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to change the articles, there would need to be widespread agreement in the discussion that is based on policy (see my previous comments about sourcing). Right now, I would only be willing to consider unblocking you if you were to agree not to edit these articles going forward. Otherwise, I think you need to sit out the block, given that you have been blocked in the past for this same behavior. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, if either of you (or any other admin) is satified with their answers and wishes to unblock, no need to check with me first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]