User talk:SomewhereInLondon

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of British general election slogans (December 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. 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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of British general election slogans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spill beans) 16:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to David Bowie, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at David Bowie. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. No-consensus Mlpearc (open channel) 19:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genre in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at David Bowie. Genre warring Mlpearc (open channel) 19:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at "Heroes" (David Bowie song) with this edit. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 23:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have not made a single disruptive edit. I just feel that Heroes' wikipedia page does not make it clear that it is considered one of the greatest songs of all time. It is consistently ranked among the greatest songs of all time so I'm baffled as to why my accolades table has been removed, since I have referenced my sources, such as TIME Magazine's 'All-Time 100 Songs' of which Heroes has been included. However, all these edits have been removed, despite the fact that I spent hours researching the accolades won by the song from various music magazines. Every accolade in the accolades table is referenced to the relevant publication. Similar accolades tables have been made for songs such as Stairway to Heaven

Accept reason:

See the appeal below. Katie^talk 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Could you explain what you find disruptive about the edits made at "Heroes" (David Bowie song)? It seems to add relevant information via reliable sources. only (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

only I saw that this user was reported at AIV. I looked at this page that the editor edited and his edit was reverted because it removed content, and his accolades table he added was reverted because of WP:NOR. But I don't see any Original Research in this user's edits to Heroes. I can understand though why KrakatoaKatie blocked this user. Maybe because of all the warnings he has received. Class455fan1 (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the edits and I'm inclined to unblock. I see SomewhereInLondon has tried to engage with other editors and been more or less brushed off, so I think a block isn't particularly fair. @KrakatoaKatie: can you give me very specific diffs that you felt a block would be the best solution to avoid damage and disruption to the encyclopedia? @Mlpearc:, @Oshwah:, please read this and then this. I have warned Mlpearc that violating WP:3RR applies to him too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Huh - that ping didn't work last night. Sorry about that, because I would have come to look at this if I had been notified. @Ritchie333: In retrospect, I agree I might have been a little quick to block, so I've unblocked. That said, he was asked to gain consensus per WP:BRD and instead reinserted his changes, though he did so in a series of edits instead of a single revert. I don't think a request to discuss on the article talk page is a brush-off. The manner in which he was asked might be, but the gist remains. SomewhereInLondon, please gain consensus for such wholesale changes before making them. That similar accolades tables exist in other articles doesn't mean the editors who monitor this topic are okay with it in this one. Katie^talk 19:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Katie. I should mention that SomewhereInLondon did start a talk page thread on David Bowie, so for that article they did do what they were asked. I'll follow up on that thread now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Exactly, thank you. Consensus was all I was asking for. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this, Katie. Sorry to hear my ping failed last night! only (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 17 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the "Heroes" (David Bowie song) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | "Heroes"%20(David%20Bowie%20song)%5D%5D Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop assuming ownership of articles as you did at "Heroes" (David Bowie song). Behavior such as this is regarded as disruptive and could lead to edit wars and personal attacks, and is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2010s in music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackstar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soul music

Please don't spam David Bowie's name all over the place. And please don't stick it in front of a footnote that doesn't mention him. That's considered misrepresenting a source, and it's not tolerated on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC) I'm only adding his name where its warranted.[reply]

Draft:List of British general election slogans concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of British general election slogans, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was "Labour isn't working" in it? -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Corbyn

I was surprised to see the pejorative description "hard-left" in the opening sentence, and see that it was inserted by you, earlier today. Worse, you have linked the description "hard-left" not to the Wikipedia entry for that pejorative term, but instead to the Wikipedia entry for more neutral term "far-left". No citation is given for this tendentious description.

JeffreyGodfrey (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

... for not biting me back at Phillip Green. -Roxy the dog™ bark 20:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuneaton (UK Parliament constituency), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Party leadership election, 2015. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, SomewhereInLondon. 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)[reply]

‎File:Bowie HeroesSingle.jpg

This image is discussed at FFD. I invite you to the discussion to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your whitewashing of Daily Telegraph article lead section

In Wikipedia the lead summarises the article. Systematic removal of all criticism from the lead isn't going to happen, in any article, but particularly in one about a newspaper.GliderMaven (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Electoral history of Boris Johnson) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Electoral history of Boris Johnson, SomewhereInLondon!

Wikipedia editor Ramaksoud2000 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

To reply, leave a comment on Ramaksoud2000's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Edit warring at Daily Telegraph

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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.

January 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Black Beatles, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Work (Rihanna song). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Work (Rihanna song). Magnolia677 (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Regarding your creation of Talk:Passionfruit (Drake song), I don't know if you copied the templates from another talk page, but this article has only three short sentences and an infobox. That is not sufficient to categorise the album as start class. It is a stub. Ss 112 18:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wizkid (musician)

You claim that the information is "unnecessary", yet you tweaked it to include the names of some of the artists previously mentioned. Why didn't you just remove the whole thing altogether? I do not want to engage in an edit war with you. You'll have to reach consensus via the article's talk page. If you do not want to use this route to reach consensus, I will take this to WP:DRN. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump

Hi, I reverted your removal of the word "false". I don't mean to discourage you from trying to get rid of that word, but the best way is to first give your reasons at the article talk page, and try to persuade the other editors there. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, SomewhereInLondon. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, SomewhereInLondon. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tedros Adhanom without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID general sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]