User talk:Horizonlove/Archive 2

January 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Robert Owens (musician), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Soul II Soul
At Soul II Soul you made 4 edits on from December 25th to December 30th. You wrote here that "Soul II Soul released their live album 'Origins: The Roots Of Soul II Soul' on December 9, 2016". The source cited to support your edit states that you retrieved it on October 13, 2016. Please make a point of updating the access date, or it will give the appearance of an unsourced edit. Also, in your edits you added and removed the names of the group's members, and their roles within the group, though you did not add a reliable source to support your edits. Was this original research? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question. Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, your first request makes no sense. If you had read the source when it was added, you would know that the original release date was October 21, 2016 for the album according the source/reference. I retrieved it on October 13, 2016, and phrased the sentence as "Soul II Soul are scheduled to release their live album "Origins: The Roots Of Soul II Soul" on October 21, 2016." When the source was revised with a new release date, I changed the sentence. Secondly, the members timeline is very accurate and please do not challenge that. Horizonlove (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to read WP:PROVEIT. Again, you added and removed the names of the group's members, and their roles within the group.  What was your source?  Will you be adding the source to the article, or will you be leaving your edit unsourced?  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Why is it that when I use another page as rough draft, nobody challenges that article? Will you be challenging that article too even though there is no source? Horizonlove (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It would help if you left an edit summary explaining what you did to avoid future confusion. The Soul II Soul page lacks references, especially on the post 2007 work. They were/are a seminal British outfit and it would be great if this one could achieve GA status actually. Did you see the Jazzie B doc on the BBC last year? Karst (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is very accurate because it comes from the source. The lineups are always credited in the album information. After the original left the group, Jazzie B acknowledge the new [1990] lineup on their live concert DVD and how long they had been in the group. He also acknowledge that Marcia Lewis was his cousin. In later interview with Lamya, Kym, Victoria, they stated they left the group after the tour. In THE WEEK newspaper, Lamya talk about how she left to tour with Duran Duran and work with Prince. Victoria said she left after the tour in this interview. Melissa Bell was featured on their single "Wish" and appears on the Volume V album as well as press photos (alongside Penny Ford, Jazzie B, and Charlotte). Album credits explain the member timeline up to 1997. The group came together at Lovebox 2007 with Caron on lead vocals. Aitch B and MC Chickaboo were also present. They had a reunion tour in 2010, which lasted until 2011. After the tour, Charlotte carried on as the lead vocalist in 2012. December 2012, Soul II Soul performed "Keep on Movin'" and "Back to Life (However Do You Want Me)" on Later... with Jools Holland with Caron Wheeler as the lead vocalist. They also confirmed to be working on a new album. In April 2013, Soul II Soul (Charlotte & Jazzie B) launched the Soul II Soul 'Classics' Collection at Harvey Nichols in London, England. Soul II Soul received the honorary PRS Heritage Plaque award. Jazzie B, Wheeler, Daddae, Mazelle, Kelly, Aitch B, and Jazzi Q were among the members present (they took a group picture). They also performed during the ceremony. In 2014, Soul II Soul performed at the Lovebox Festival.


 * Hi! It's obvious you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but are encountering some difficulties with some more experienced editors. Here's some advice to get them off your back!  Rather than talking about the sources on your user talk page (or theirs), insert the sources into the article itself. Here is some help in doing so: Citing sources.  Also, make sure your sources are what the encyclopedia considers reliable.  It's really quite easy once you get the hang of it, and it will result in your time being spent doing the edits you like instead of being dragged into conflicts here and there. Feel free to ask me for help, or Magnolia677 (even though he may seem stern, if you ask he can be very helpful!), or Karst or any of the others.  Almost everyone is willing to help a new editor if they are willing to listen! Happy editing! Jacona (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Re: Eightball Records hijacking
It is improper editing practice to simply replace an article's contents with an unrelated subject, while providing misleading edit summaries such as "Corrected the page". Practices such as disambiguation guideline may take a few more steps, but is less disruptive approach. Dl2000 (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ordinary that would be true. But because there were no sources and I can't find anything on Google about it, one can't help but wonder what this page was really about. I can see that you are not the original author of the page, so I'm guessing you did not add that Myspace link there (which is not appropriate link). So it's easy to understand why I thought this page was incorrect on its information. However I believe it will fixed very soon. Horizonlove (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Arguments
Thanks for your contributions to the Joi Cardwell article. Just a heads up to remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Your defensive and at time combative attitude really is not helping your case here. Rebbing rightly pointed at a degree of ownership when he attempted to discuss the columns issue on the Deliverance (Joi Cardwell album) Talk page. And he is right, to facilitate mobile users we prefer to avoid using those. Your accusations levelled at Jennica were unwarranted and I am glad to see you apologised. When people work on the articles that you have contributed to discuss the changes that you disagree with please. And don't call them stupid, as you did here. Karst (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't even know what you're talking about. First of all, I never acted in a combative way. Second, I never claimed ownership of any article. If you read closely, you would have seen that the last thing I would ever do. And I welcome them to be productive and not disruptive on article. It's about editing because your opinion of how something should look, it's about meeting Wikipedia guideline. You don't know what Rebbing is right about because you haven't analyze the situation. You are just giving your opinion based off of first glance. If you analyzed correctly, you would have seen that I acted in good faith time after time after. Including commenting back accordingly and appropriately. As for being "hounded" by Jennica, that's how I felt considering that she appeared on every page that I edited as well as the discussion that I had on another page. Also, it's "apologized" not "apologised". Next, you are showing that you did not evaluate very well because I opened several conversation after I disagree with them. Lastly I said, "I would never attack another user, but that was really stupid of you to do and upsetting to have to fix." His edits of creating pages from deadlinks solely for redirecting were agreed to be bad practice. Please know what you are talking about before jumping in and taking sides. Horizonlove (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Karst (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have responded to it. Horizonlove (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Success in improving Wikipedia
Horizonlove, you are clearly interested in editing Wikipedia and making it better. Thank you! Unfortunately, I fear that you may not be here long enough to reach your full potential. This is not any kind of official warning, or official anything, just a word of advice that you can choose to ignore if you like. If you want to be around long, don't be combative. You are making positive contributions, but you haven't been here long, and those who have been here a long time know some things about how to move forward productively. Rather than arguing, reverting, and fighting every time someone does something you disagree with, take time to understand why they did it. If it's not obvious, ask them, rather than rushing headlong to do it your way. Perhaps sometimes you should consider moving on to another article, and then returning to that one in a few hours, days, or longer, after you've had some time to understand why they did something. Please listen! You have much potential to do good work here, and I'll be saddened if they kick you out, which could easily happen if you don't listen and learn! Happy editing, and thanks for your efforts! Jacona (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I don't think I'll be here much longer too because I'm tired of dealing with immature editors. I have never argued with anyone. I have been open to discussion time and time again despite being dismissed. The history is constantly there. It really aggravates me when people have no idea what they are talking about or when they team up together on editors. The results are that I have seen editors that so-call "retire", others leave, and the rest choose to make a huge scene as they don't care anymore. As for "you should consider moving on to another article, and then returning to that one in a few hours, days,...", I have done that so many times and how many times did Karst and Magnolia677 decide to follow me and check up or challenge my edits. Soul II Soul → Kym Mazelle → Joi Cardwell, and those are just the ones I remember vividly. In my opinion, you should really evaluate Magnolia677. S/he has behaved in a way that seems very dismissive and has not been the best way to perform. As I have said, whenever this editor gets involved with me, it is impossible to reason them. But I suppose that doesn't matter when s/he has their specific team to intervene and take up for them. Horizonlove (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The goal of Wikipedia is not to beat up on you, so maybe you should read the material they give you, follow the links, and learn. If you do so, you will learn that what they are saying generally does make sense, in spite of the way you feel about it right now.  But at this point, you are just calling them "immature", when in fact they've been editing for many years while you are new...that means that at this point, as a Wikipedia editor, you are (quite naturally) immature.  You can stamp your feet, take your ball and go home, or you can stop and listen.  Even the rudest editor you've mentioned will most likely come around and be most helpful if you'll engage them with dialogue rather than assuming they're just out to get you.  When they piss you off, ask them politely what you did wrong and if they can point you to some reading material that will help you understand.  I hope you'll give cooperation a try. Jacona (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * "You can stamp your feet, take your ball and go home, or you can stop and listen." I don't know if you are using an analogy or if you are referring to me. If you are referring to me, I'm guessing you are either not reading what I wrote or you don't care. Either way, I can definitely I have not behaved in a way that was immature. From day 1, I have stayed in my lane and edited/improved stubs. I have followed the rules and what I was not sure about, I asked about. But if no one is will to see that, then I give up! Horizonlove (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JoiCardwellABeautifulLife.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:JoiCardwellABeautifulLife.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)