User talk:Kellymoat

Magna Carta Holy Grail
Hey Kellymoat, wasn't there a consensus against removing this wording on Jay Z and Kanye articles? This editor appears to have done so at Yeezus as well.  Ss 112  08:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Ss I have reverted those edits. But, as far as the content goes...
 * Wikipedia is the land of the "Do over". If someone doesn't like the results, they can try again and again until they get the results they like. It is still the currently accepted wording, but if you look at this and this, you'll see that someone is trying hard. Requesting a third opinion, not liking the result, opening a request for comment hoping for a different result.
 * It's so bad that I opened an unsuccessful SPI on two dozen users. I mean, are we really to believe that someone with two edits choose that day to to respond to an RfC. But the case was closed for "poor reporting", and the users weren't even looked at. Kellymoat (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kelly! (regarding The Life of Pablo)
Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out. Currently, The "The Life of Pablo" page only includes one of the two album covers. There was a time when it included both. Since I am a new user, I am having trouble figuring out how to add the secondary (is it really) cover back since it deserves to be there -- he never changed the cover, just released an alternate. I would also suggest that the primary cover for the album returns to the original cover (https://rapdose.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-8.jpeg), since, again, the current cover on the page is, in his words, "another" one. I understand that TIDAL eventually changed the cover to the alternate one (as did every other streaming service/his website), but it makes more sense to have Kanye's official cover be the first one seen when looking at the page. One of the primary conceptual elements of the album is its state of flux. I'm happy to hear you out if you disagree! Zlernersinsheimer (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * if it was there before... I would check the edit history. There was probably a reason why it was removed. Kellymoat (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * see this - Files_for_discussion/2016_April_20

July 2017
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Zabboo (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2017 (PST)


 * YAY, you know how to copy-and-paste.
 * Now if you just learn how to read an edit summary, you would understand why your edits keep getting reverted by so many users.Kellymoat (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Your changes to my edits on Ringo's articles are clearly based in contempt over my revision of the Eagles' timeline. At this point, I think it's worked out aside from the All-Starr band timeline. Please discuss Don't Pass Me By in the talk page section I started. P.S., you and one other user are the only ones who have ever repeatedly reverted my edits - both based out of what seems like a weird vendetta against me. Let's just let it all go. Zabboo (talk) 11:25, 8 July 2017 (PST)


 * Admittedly, your insistence on ignoring Wikipedia standards on the Eagles article is why I have taken a moment to review some of your other edits. Which has then led me to find so many other things to revert and copyedit. But, believe me, you aren't the first to cry victim over having your edits reverted. Truthfully, no matter how many times I have said it before, I always need to say it again - I don't give two shits about who is making the edits. I only care about the content.
 * Thank you for adding proper sources for some of the information on Give Me Love. If my reverts have accomplished anything, it is the fact that you have at least done that. Sadly, I am in the process of re-removing some of the other garbage that you insist on adding - which wouldn't need done had you simply added the sourced information instead of undoing my revert of your edits. Kellymoat (talk) 06:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Piece of advice, you are not going to find many people sympathetic to your cause if you accuse me or User:Mlpearc of hating/biting you "out of what seems like a weird vendetta against" you - like you did here.
 * Kellymoat (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I deleted that comment as I realized it was unnecessary. You are clearly very deeply invested in the game of this whole site - I'm not looking to have anyone be "sympathetic to my cause," I'm just surprised at the amount of trickery and nasty behavior that can go on. If I went into your contributions I'm sure I would find a number of things that didn't need to be reverted (as that's all you seem to do - revert), but I'm not going to do that because I don't have the time and I'm not that much of an asshole. I'd appreciate it if you would just leave me the hell alone. - Zabboo (talk) 0:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't make edits that need reverted, and you won't be reverted. You do realize that I am not the only one reverting your edits, don't you. Do you dwell on other users like you do me?
 * You should also note that I did try to copyedit/cleanup a number of your edits instead of a complete revert. You seem to not like those either.
 * This is an encyclopedia, not social media or a celebrity blog. We do have acceptable methods of writing. Kellymoat (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Jungle Rules
Hi User:Kellymoat, after Jungle Rules is released on Friday 14th, if you've got time, can you be on the lookout for genres from post-release reviews please, some of which might mention the genre of lead single "Unforgettable" also, cheers.--Theo Mandela (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kellymoat (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Page looks ugly now credits touches each other can't you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB08:8139:3C00:D6F:BF1E:E52E:5C86 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, you did a copy and paste, LOL. You even left my signature in it.


 * I have no idea what kind of device you are using. But you should consider using a different one. The page looks fine. Furthermore, even if it did have an issue, you don't "line up" by using white space, you do it with a template. Kellymoat (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There are white spaces above just because of a picture tho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB08:8139:3C00:D6F:BF1E:E52E:5C86 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See, you don't even know what "white space" is. So this conversation is pointless. Kellymoat (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zabboo (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are a douche bag. As was stated in the findings, you need to concern yourself with learning the rules more than you do trolling me. Kellymoat (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2017 (UTC)




 * Like, for real, did you even read that conversation. He left my fucking signature in his copy and paste (even you knew enough not to do that) . And then he followed it up with his own comment "the page looks ugly". Why the fuck would you even waste your time reporting that. Get a life. Kellymoat (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Like, for real, did you even read that conversation. He left my fucking signature in his copy and paste (even you knew enough not to do that) . And then he followed it up with his own comment "the page looks ugly". Why the fuck would you even waste your time reporting that. Get a life. Kellymoat (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

TLC Haters
Unfortunately that's the only source that talks about the song being taken from the Rosso Sisters. It's quite credible considering there's a link showing the exact same song by the British group in 2014. There's only forums that talk about the two songs and they can't be used. We aren't going to just let TLC be seen as the originators of this song and I doubt there will be a source to officially claim the Rosso Sisters as the originators since they were never that big musically to begin with and quickly vanished as they came to be. - Jabrona (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If it is true, legitimate sources will cover it. Kellymoat (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it IS true. We have an article and videos showing in 2014 this girl group sung it long before TLC did. So far, not one source has claimed this for us to use to display on the page that's official enough for Wikipedia's standards and it's been out for months, but it's nevertheless an old song from 2014. We should just go with what sources are there, the article and video. They're not lying and it bothers me the page just makes it seem like it's a TLC original. - Jabrona (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If it is true, legitimate sources will cover it. Kellymoat (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * IT IS TRUE. Why are you acting like it's not saying "if it is" like I showed you it is ma'am. The fact it's been months and no "legitimate source" has yet confirmed this but these fan articles and forums is disgusting. But we shouldn't just leave the page without mentioning the Rossos. Some official article companies don't cover everything and I doubt they'll touch on this since the Rossos were practically unpopular. I didn't even know they had a music group apart from their acting stuff. - Jabrona (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that it is posted in some chat rooms, but nowhere else, should be enough for you to drop it.Kellymoat (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So you think it's false, even though we have VIDEO FOOTAGE from 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUBmGOZANSU and an ALBUM released that year internationally with the song on it to prove it was already did? It's only mentioned in the forums because no one else official is saying anything about it. TLC did not originate the song. Look it up and you'll see the Rossos did it first. Stop being so delusional. Don't tell me to drop it, how about you STOP it? - Jabrona (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Have you even read what you wrote?
 * that's the only source. There's only forums. I doubt there will be a source. not one source has claimed this. no "legitimate source" has yet confirmed. these fan articles and forums. It's only mentioned in the forums. no one else official is saying anything.
 * Those are all your own words. Why are we even having this conversation. You admitted that there's nothing that meets WP standards. Kellymoat (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't state there was just the forums. That article link I cited on the page next to the Youtube video was also something. I miswrote the "only forums" I was stating that's the only other place this is talked about. There's no other article there. But the point is, we have sources that prove legitimately the song is covered and have been done before by a previous group. Lighten up. That's why we're having this conversation. We ought to provide something that PROVES this matter regardless if the source site is superficial or not. As long as it proves something I don't think it should matter. We can't just let the page indicate TLC just originated the song and they did not and it's bad enough the Rossos don't get enough recognition for it as it is. - Jabrona (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You know, one of those big thick reference books that everyone hated using in school. The kind of book you can't even check out of at a library, you have to use inside. This isn't social media or a celebrity gossip column. There's different standards for what gets written here. Kellymoat (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Zabboo (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked
Per my final warning here. For your fourth (or fifth now?) violation of 3RR, you are blocked for a month. Stop edit warring. Sergecross73  msg me  02:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * that's not an edit war. That' removal of unsourced content.Kellymoat (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We both know that's not a valid exemption for edit warring. Sergecross73   msg me  14:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to permanently block this person? unsigned comment from 108.53.9.75 22:50, 23 July 2017‎


 * I think a better question is - a New Jersey IP wanting me blocked permanently? Must be the sockpuppet vandal, PeopleEater143. No one cares. Move on. Kellymoat (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You're unbelievable
In my absense, do you know who else has made the same edits as me on the same pages as me...

User:Binksternet - his name appears as the most recent editor on 11 pages on my watch list. User:DoRD - his name appears as the most recent editor on 14 pages on my watch list. I haven't seen User:JesseRafe in quite awhile. But with me not here to revert edits, look who has picked up some of my slack. User:SummerPhDv2.0's name is quite active on pages I watch.

Are all of them socks too? How can you call yourself an admin when you even entertain the idea that obvious socks/vandals put in your head.

The fact that other people are making the same edits on the same pages simply shows you that those edits need to happen.Kellymoat (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking to me? And about ? I don't want to tell you too much, because I don't want to help you do further block evasion, but there's 2 dead give-aways that you are responsible for:


 * 1) Tangojaded created their account pretty directly after you were blocked and stopped complaining about it. Then, they just happened to continue to make the same edits that you were. You cannot say that about any of the random users you listed above.
 * 2) Your response as "Tango" is a dead give away - you obviously answered it as Kellymoat, not a random new person. Tango hasn't been accused of being like 4-5 other users. Kellymoat has. "Tango" has one accusation of being one other editor. "Kelly" has multiple accusations by multiple editors. There's no reason for "Tango", were they a separate person, to think there were multiple accusations. And even beyond that, there's no reason why a random person would respond with the same cadence and irritation that you always do when you're accused of stuff. Sergecross73   msg me  12:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I got "angry", because out of no where someone comes and starts asking me about my identity. That is the kind of stuff that makes you go hmm. It wasn't until later when I opened up your history that I saw that someone else had initiated it. A certain someone who I had reverted earlier that day. And yes, they have included multiple names. Tangojaded (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no one has accused Tango of being anyone except Kellymoat. Additionally, I don't think it's normal response for you to get angry and instead request that I look into the accusers instead. I deal with new editors a lot. That's not a natural or common response. But that is the response given virtually every time Kellymoat is blocked for edit warring. Or accused of everything. There's just too many coincidences here. Sergecross73   msg me  13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

CU-blocked
This is now an indefinite CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Turnpiketroubadors.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Turnpiketroubadors.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) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marty Stuart, Compadres Anthology.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Marty Stuart, Compadres Anthology.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) 17:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)