User talk:0mtwb9gd5wx/Bot 0001

Disambiguation link notification for July 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Storyville (nightclub), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Storyville ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Storyville_%28nightclub%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Storyville_%28nightclub%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 06:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Mvcg66b3r. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to WNET have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * not promotional, Q.V. 10:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC) 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on WNET. 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: 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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * All Arts is part of WNET. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Mvcg66b3r seems to be a single issue account, with persistant bias issues. View edit history. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

November 2022
Your recent editing history at Milkshake (song) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You're completely misinterpreting what the article is saying. The sentence you highlighted ("I was told we were going to split the whole thing 33/33/33...") is clearly talking about the splitting of profits from the album sales. Nowhere does it say anything at all about songwriting credits or "songwriting rights". I have no idea how you concluded that Kelis "signed away" her songwriting credits (especially when she's officially credited as a songwriter on other songs from the album), but you're wrong and you need to stop.  snap snap  (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Is english not your first lenguage? She signed documents without counsel and without reading them. "the whole thing". 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, English is not my first language, but I'm a fluent speaker. There's nothing in the source that directly proves or even suggests that Kelis "signed away" her songwriting credits upon signing her recording contract. That makes zero sense considering she's officially credited as a co-writer alongside the Neptunes on many songs from her first two albums. Stating that "the whole thing" includes songwriting credits when it's not something explicitly supported by the source is nothing but original research.  snap snap  (talk) 06:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Bogus references
In response to your recent edits such as and  : You have added a "reference" to a sentence that does not verify the sentence / paragraph. This is absolutely forbidden - it's worse than doing nothing. The sentence says "It is usually held in February or March", so if you add a reference, it needs to be on when Jefferson-Jackson dinners are usually held. You've instead added random spam to a commercial site that is selling a print.

Your talk page goes back to 2020. How to use references is a very, very basic part of Wikipedia editing. If you truly just wanted to throw in the link as maybe helpful, then use External links, although that picture isn't really close to qualifying for inclusion there either, but at least it's not a misleading reference. SnowFire (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * News photo of 1958 Jefferson-Jackson dinner from Denver Post. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a trolling question, but can you speak / understand English? If not, what's your first language?  We seem to have a failure to communicate here.  SnowFire (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Bogus references, part II
Hello again,

So I can't wait to hear this one. Did you just make up that citation to Wallach in this edit? How exactly were you reading her book - physically, or via eBook? If physically, what was the page number? If via ebook, can you quote the passage and context? For the photograph you added earlier, what made you think it was a photograph of Bell at all? SnowFire (talk) 02:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)