User talk:Вислід

Why?
Why do you insist on an unsourced list of non-notable mixtapes? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Those mixtapes're not related to unreleased material since they were officially put for free download. , --Kews (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are reliable sources, neither is significant coverage and there is nothing indicating that any of them are notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If DatPiff (in the link it's said "This mixtape is an official release from Cashis") is not a reliable source, then why won't you delete info from here Lil B discography? Capo hater?--Kews (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * i don't care what is happening in that article. If I choose to edit there, I would address it. Secondly, you are listing a LOT of mixtapes and come up with two lame sources. Lastly, calling me names just illustrates how you have no policy based response. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Calling you names in this case means you have double standards. 1) The example I put was about to show you that official mixtapes should be mentioned in the article. Check also Gucci Mane, Lloyd Banks discographies etc.; 2) DatPiff is a reliable source, if not why does it have article in wiki DatPiff. It proves that a mixtape is official. Official mixtapes of underground artist are notable enough to be mentioned (we're not talking about creating articles about each of them). Instead of removing info you'd better help finding links. Anyway I don't care that much since I'm mainly working in another language edition.Kews (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, what is done in another article doesn't mean it is in line with policies. You need to lose this WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS mindset. Second, having an article means a source is NOTABLE, not reliable. For example, Examiner.com has an article, but is blacklisted. Lastly, EACH mixtape would need to be sourced. Thanks for your opinion that sourcing non-notable mixtapes would be helpful. My opinion is that the article will be improved by acting like an editor, not a fan. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Apparently, you're fuzzy on what vandalism is, so you might want to re-read it. Just because you don't like the trivia about non-notable stuff being removed, it doesn't magically become vandalism and absolve you from the 3RR issues. The unsourced information about minor appearences on non-notable songs by non-notable artists was removed and the reasoning was clearly stated. The notable stuff was left in place. If you disagree, DISCUSS it, don't just make false vandalism accusations. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you need a link to the talk page? Let me know if you do. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)