User talk:Dojazervas

April 2020
Hello, I'm Creffett. I noticed that in this edit to Love Myself, 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. creffett (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I was removing two unsourced genres and I didn't find it necessary to explain myself but I will make sure I do next time. :) Dojazervas (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Beerbongs & Bentleys, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I changed it even though you said it is better not to
They are putting him as a singer first because he is more of a singer than a rapper. That is why I changed it again. FortniteRishabS0122 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but some people may think he is more of a singer but most sources either call him a rapper or a rapper and singer. Dojazervas (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Stoney Genre
Hi. you critiqued AllMusic (and Pitchfork), but then removed Album of the Year (and Pitchfork). Mistake, or? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Ok reading this is embarrassing because I realize now that I made it so obvious and that there is no use trying to pretend I’m not Billiekhalidfan. But am I really hurting anyone with my edits? Most of my edits are removing unsourced genres or other content, which is not disruptive, and is helpful. I mean, I was initially blocked for "abusively" using multiple accounts, however, on the account User:Enteryourusername101, I literally fixed four typos and added one thing, and then changed my mind. It’s not like I was defending Billiekhalidfan on a talk page or something, which would obviously be abusive. And on this account, I can’t remember specifically defending viewpoints of Billiekhalidfan specifically. I’ve only defended points that are believed by multiple users, and only reverted edits that likely would have been reverted anyway. For example, I made sure that Easy and Cry for Me were listed as singles on Romance. I know that someone else would have done this at a later time if I hadn’t, so it really doesn’t make a difference. In fact, I’ve even contradicted my old edits at times. For example, I used to be against labeling Lana Del Rey as a rock singer, but now that I became a fan and have heard her music, I reasonably moved rock to the top of the list. I don’t know how that is abusive editing. Also, I’d like to just say that I’m honestly really bored lately and I can imagine everyone else is because of all the quarantining. I’m even on spring break. Wikipedia editing is fun for me and not being able to do that is honestly sad. (I am a music nerd so that’s why I only edit music-related articles, and this is basically the only place to express my music-neediness) And the only reason I was blocked for editing with User:Electricwater, was because I was blocked for sockpuppeting with an account that wasn’t even me. Then because I edited five times with EYU101, I was blocked for socking "again". It all just seems a bit ridiculous if you’re asking me. I know you can’t unblock me because, the rules are the rules, and I sockpuppeted. But I just wanted to say that it’s kind of ridiculous to block a user who isn’t even a vandal or anything like that. Dojazervas (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you had just sat out for a good year without all the socking, you might have been able to request being unblocked. Unfortunately that's going to be very difficult now. The issue is not per-se your edits. It's your demonstrated lack of respect for the community's rules and guidelines. A lack of respect that you compound every time you engage in sockpuppetry. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

If the issue is not "per-se" my edits, then why would they all be reverted? Especially since some of them were literally correcting errors. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn’t purposely revert useful edits because of an incident. Dojazervas (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:DENY. Allowing blocked persons to edit the encyclopedia is widely seen as encouraging socking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixing typos isn’t vandalism. I mean, look at this. The Wikipedia page for that album lists it as the second single. It's PURE good faith! This is complete bullshit, in a few days or so someone will correct it again anyway. I understand removing content I added, but actively making things incorrect on an ENCYCLOPEDIA on PURPOSE is beyond stupid. This is why teachers don’t let their students use Wikipedia as a source. And honestly, if this is what the Wikipedia community is like (reverting edits out of spite), I don’t want to be a part of it. Go celebrate, I’m gone! Yay! (I’m talking to you, Ss112). And go ahead, call me dramatic, a cry baby, that I’m throwing a fit, a tantrum, I don’t care anymore! Why should I care what some random person online thinks of me? Dojazervas (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's enough. I think this conversation has ceased to be productive. TPA revoked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)