User talk:Petergriffin9901/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Petergriffin9901. 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.

Hello, Petergriffin9901. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed your edit here indicating retirement. If this is true, then know that you'll be missed. I know you haven't been very active for a while either way in quite some time, but would hate to see you officially leave the site. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it's never good to close the door completely. I prefer the "semi". It's good to hear from you buddy and glad to see you still thriving. Sometimes when I start editing I'm reminded of how toxic the climate here can be, so its unfortunate. I'll always definitely be around to watch out for my Mimi ;)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a relief! I'm still thriving for sure. Sorry about any toxic climate, but it's good to know you'll still be around. Mimi and her articles do need your care, especially the more recent material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968:@MPFitz1968: if you are a fair editor you will actually do the research first instead of jumping to revert. You are reverting an edit that restores reliably sourced material that as recently removed. Tell me a good reason you think it's appropriate for you to remove information as such? Just because you feel like empowering yourself amidst a conflict?--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carbrera:@Carbrera: Well mate, I think you honestly could have just fixed the syntax error yourself. As for your reservations on just one source, I'm fairly certain The Telegraph, The Guardian & Variety should be enough to satisfy.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Emancipation of Mimi. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.
One more revert on any of those Mariah Carey articles and I'll block you myself. This is ridiculous. Katie^talk 15:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at The Emancipation of Mimi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Katie^talk 22:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

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).

Petergriffin9901 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't apologize for my reverts. I am well within my right to revert when I am protecting an article from clear vandalism as seen on The Emancipation of Mimi. We also have fans from the Rihanna "Navy" and other Madonna fans who decide to tear down sourced information. I think Katie is mistaken in her rush to spill needless blood and think a week is excessive. There is no reason information sourced from The Daily Telegraph & The Guardian & Billboard should be tossed away. That is vandalism through and through and I question Katie's involvment because of the apparent Canvassing by User:Marcus88. I don't believe she can or this can be impartial.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This appears to be a content dispute, and it is most certainly not vandalism. Right now, I don't care who's correct. I care about the disruption stopping. More than the edit-warring, I'm concerned by the tone of both your edit summaries and your unblock request. Calling someone a nut or moron, as you did in your edit summaries, is unacceptable. Your focus on the blocking administrator rather than your own actions is also concerning. Feel free to re-appeal your block with a clear explanation of how you'd handle this moving forward if unblocked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

@BU Rob13: I have been here for almost 10 years, so I understand the drill. I, as you can see, don't edit often for years now, so when a barrage of stans come for articles I wrote years ago from scratch that are GA or FA, yes, I definitely offed my top a bit. Quite simply, moving forward, I won't revert to warring. I'll be very frank on talk pages and I assure you the outburst won't continue. I request if you can please make this a 24 Hour block. I hope that you can understand being here so long and having invested so much into the article and content, you definitely grow attached (OWN etc.) and guard them. So yes, again I was floored when multiple pages of Carey's were being vandalized. And yes, I see your point of that, but there is no reason to remove reliably sourced information. Perhaps they should consider taking it to the talk page and seeing where consensus lies. Cheers and I hope you can take this frank but honest message to heart.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've reduced the block. I recommend following the steps at WP:Dispute resolution once the block expires, including talk page discussion and possibly an RfC. Present your sources in a calm manner for the best results. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: I appreciate the "watered down" block, but not much is different. All that changes is possibly to talk. Again, 24 Hr is usually for edit warring. I think a week is excessive. I gave you my word as an editor since February 2009 that the problem will not continue and was due to prolonged absence etc and I honestly can't be more frank about how I'll be chill and non confrontational or combative. If you could please consider dissolving the block after 3 days since it began and not 7 days I would appreciate it.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
    • As I said before, I reduced the block; it was reduced to 24 hours. Sorry for any confusion. I should have mentioned the new length before. I did speak to Katie off-wiki prior to reducing the block length to get her view on the block, and the main reason for the length was your lengthy block log which included several blocks for edit-warring. It's normal to receive a block of a week or longer when you have a history of edit-warring. We don't block just to punish, though, and I believe that you'll edit productively, so I've reduced it. That likely won't happen again in the future if the issues recur, just so you're aware. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

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).

Petergriffin9901 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Because it's excessive and unwarranted plain and simple. Not to mention the Administrator in question was being canvassed by editors, thereby raising questions about her impartiality. And No Katie, removing sourced information without replacement for the hell of it is indeed vandalism.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 01:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; multiple unblock requests open at once. Please add information in comments below the unblock request if one is open. There's no need to open multiple at once. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Hello, Petergriffin9901. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sandbox3".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Petergriffin9901. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sandbox4".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you subscribe to Billboard? Mariah's Vegas and Christmas residencies have some unsourced boxscore data and I can't find sources for them.  — Calvin999 09:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Hey mate, unfortunately I do not.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Am I imagining things or did Billboard write an article about Mariah selling out her 2014 Christmas shows? I can't seem to find it though I swear I've seen it.  — Calvin999 08:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey mate. This & This is what I was able to find. Hope it helps/supports.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 23:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen those ones. I thought Billboard did one purely commenting about her selling it out but maybe I imagined it.  — Calvin999 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Petergriffin9901. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fall Out Boy - I'm Like A Lawyer With The Way I'm Always Trying To Get You Off (Me & You).ogg. 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) 18:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Fall Out Boy - This Ain't A Scene, It's An Arms Race.ogg. 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) 18:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Mariah Carey - Side Effects.ogg. 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) 02:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Mimitour.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) 19:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Petergriffin9901. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You removed my source from chartmasters, a data collector that calculates album sales, and replaced again with BET.com. How is the website more reliable than chartmasters.org? Ironman1p (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There has been long-standing consensus for Daydream and Music Box to remain at 28m and 20m respectively. Due to the fact that sources tend to take information from Wikipedia (such as record sales) and then recirculate them, we generally look at certification thresh-holds that are met before increasing sales numbers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 18:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)