User talk:47.17.47.199

May 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Black & Blue (Backstreet Boys album). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Don't change date formats between the mdy and dmy methods. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to BET Awards 2002 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Liliana (UwU) 20:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at First Impressions of Earth, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 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, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * 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.

December 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at I Am... (Nas album). Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Stop removing publication names from cites. You have removed lots of Entertainment Weekly and NME magazine names. Also, these are magazines, not strictly websites. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Many Entertainment Weekly links r expired, I just tend 2 update them 47.17.47.199 (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop removing the other parts of the citations! Just update the URL and leave everything else. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm better off doing this on mobile, not necessarily a computer. I want the links 2 b fresh 47.17.47.199 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that an excuse for removing important parts of the citations? If so, I will keep reverting you, to restore things like the magazine name and any links to the author's biography. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How r "author links" necessary if they're unclickable? I view them as OBSOLETE 47.17.47.199 (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Stankonia. 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. Binksternet (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2022 (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.

January 2023
Hello, I'm Binksternet. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Don Cartagena have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. ''Don't remove the magazine name from the citation! I can't believe you're still doing this after all our discussion.'' Binksternet (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The magazine part of this refwerence has become difficult 2 look 4. I'm citing a web article now, neither its outdated version nor a magazine article 47.17.47.199 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I had a look after seeing Binksternet's ANI report, and you aren't making sense. The URL prefix is still "EW.com" (old URL preserved in the archived ref: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0%2C%2C285082%2C00.html; new URL: https://ew.com/article/1998/10/02/don-cartagena/); what do you mean the magazine part has become difficult to look for? When we cite an article's URL, we are always citing the online/web version; whether or not there's a print version too is immaterial; an online publication is still a publication. (And in any case, when this and the other refs were originally published, there was a print version.) The name of the publication/website/publisher is an important part of the citation; a reader shouldn't have to click on a reference to see where it was published (even though in this instance Entertainment Weekly appeared in the article text). Updating the URLs is useful work—in some cases, the original may not have been archived, and in many cases such as this one the archived version has wound up with scrambled formatting so readers may not realize the text is down the bottom under the mess. But please stop removing the name of the publication/website/publisher. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * IP editor, in response to your post at my user talk page, I'm afraid to say your position still doesn't make any sense. Many of the things we use as references become hard to find after a while, or always have been. Some of them are books that aren't in many libraries. Some newspapers impose paywalls on their archives, or only let you see a couple of articles before subscribing, and very few libraries have microform archives, and in any cases for very few papers. The internet has helped a lot, but URLs change or the page is taken offline. That's why we look for and add archive.org or other archived URLs (there's even a bot that searches for them automatically when it finds a dead link). And that's why you've been doing useful work finding the new URLs for EW references. But it was still EW when that reference was at that URL; the URL prefix is still the same. And the online version of a magazine—or an online-only magazine, like Slate—is still a magazine (or a "work", or a publication of a company doing business as EW), or a website called EW.com. And the reader needs to know what website/work/magazine/publisher the reference is from. It's not just an article floating in the air, out there somewhere. There's also the question of giving credit where credit is due. EW has built up a respected body of work; it's a reliable source here; it's not a name to be swept under the rug because it's not sold at news stands any more; and readers are entitled to make their own judgment about whether they trust EW as a source of reviews—just like you apparently have, that it's old and therefore you personally ignore it. The name of the publication—on-line or off-line—is actually more necessary, as context, than an updated URL, since the archived URLs you have been replacing did work, they just scrambled the formatting of the page so that it's necessary to scroll down to find the article text.
 * I'm happy you responded to me, and it's perfectly acceptable to respond on the other person's talk. But I'm responding back at your talk page because since you're an unregistered editor, I can't "ping" you to let you know I've responded; and because I'm going to be pointing to our discussion at the noticeboard section, which is here. Do you want to respond at the noticeboard to the points being made there? I note that according to you've switched IPs, so I'll be dropping a note on that IP's talk page too in case it is indeed you. And Binksternet also says you are now not removing Entertainment Weekly, just the link to the Wikipedia article about it. Thanks for that! Yngvadottir (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * In response to your message today: one of the ones where you'd been reverted and I went back and reinstated your new URL had publisher=ew.com. You could use that if you want, although it doesn't make italics. Better would be website=ew.com, if you don't want the words "Entertainment Weekly" to appear in the reference for some reason. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can settle 4 "Entertainment Weekly", just not as a magazine in these references because they're from long ago, as a website instead 47.17.47.199 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion that would be fine, if you change it to website=Entertainment Weekly. The change from "cite magazine" to "cite web" is already invisible to the reader (unless there's an issue number given, as someone has pointed out at the noticeboard), and website=Entertainment Weekly would produce the same result as work= or magazine=. I see also that your new blended archive URLs work; I changed one because I assumed they wouldn't, but the Internet Archive apparently uses just their archive code number to fetch the correct file. So I'm happy, and thanks for listening :-) (I can't promise every Wikipedian will be happy, of course. But if you do keep Entertainment Weekly in the cite, that's what matters to me.) Yngvadottir (talk) 12:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 100 Miles from Memphis—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to 100 Miles from Memphis, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 100 Miles from Memphis. 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. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 6 February 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.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Move It Like This. Stop changing minus signs to hyphens. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I edit these lately from my father's Amazon Fire tablet, I can't easily find a minus sign, just the hyphens, & I believe i still am using minus signs 47.17.47.199 (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. PhilKnight (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Aquemini. Long-term case of ruining Entertainment Weekly cites in various ways. Binksternet (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't "vandalize" the Aquemini article. The Entertainmenr Weekly article was expired, & i coyldn't find an available version of it 47.17.47.199 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I noticed that in this edit to Watermelon, Chicken & Gritz, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Online ) 19:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Signs (Snoop Dogg song), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --  Wesoree  ( talk · contribs ) 02:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I just viewed that articke, i never did ant editing on it 47.17.47.199 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Da Real World
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Da Real World, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%2047.17.47.199&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1172870673 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Real_World&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1172870673%7CDa%20Real%20World%5D%5D Ask for help])

September 2023
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at On the Line (soundtrack). Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I fixed my edit, don't worry. The war is over now 47.17.47.199 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Da Real World. 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. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 4 September 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.

 You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think 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:. Graham 87 05:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)