User talk:MikaSan

Welcome!

Hello, MikaSan, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Fæ (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Nelly Furtado
Please quit adding the Nelly Furtado album to the Neptunes discography. The source you are adding does not show that any work ever actually happened, that it is scheduled for any album which will ever be released. Nothing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your addition about Nelly was also bad. There is nothing at http://bbcicecream.com/blog/2011/10/17/studio-time-5/#more-26328 that says anything at all about the 7th studio album, and it's a blog, anyway. Please review WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL, and stop adding rumours about future events to articles.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, please stop doing this. The source doesn't meet WP:RS. Even if it did, there isn't enough material to add anything meaningful. Don't add rumours and uncertain things to articles. Limit yourself to verifiable facts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Please pay attention to these messages. Please respond. Please read WP:RS. Information from neptunes.org cannot be added to Wikipedia. It's an unofficial fansite. Only add information you can find a reliable, third-party source for the information. Not a fansite.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Backing up Kww's comments. Fansite rumors/unsourced stuff is just going to be removed.  Please also use the show preview button when editing, instead of making many small saves/edits.  This will prevent the edit history from becoming cluttered with a zillion changes.  Thanks. - eo (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Add the sources first. Do not continually readd the information without adding the sources. There's just no excuse for this: you cannot add material sourced to a fansite to Wikipedia, especially not information sourced to a fansite that you are responsible for. Don't continuously add the material unless you add reliable, third-party sources that actually support the material you are adding at the same time. I've asked you to read WP:RS, and I'm asking you to read WP:BURDEN at the same time. You have to provide reliable sources for this information.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't fix every article at once, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't fix anything at all. Feel free to add reliably sourced information to any article you choose.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there some misunderstanding about the phrase "reliably sourced"? Have you reviewed WP:RS? Why did you think simply readding all that material was acceptable when you cannot point to a reliable source for any of it?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If 3/4 of them cannot be confirmed, then 3/4 of them need to be removed. For the songs that have been released, aren't they on the production credits?&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I will review them again over the weekend. I will remove all references to fansites, so don't add those back, and I will remove all songs I can't verify. I know it feels like I'm picking on you, but it isn't a personal thing: I just noticed that the article had become full of things which went against our policies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding a reliable source can be hard, but you had some in your last effort: articles in Complex magazine and Wave newspapers. There's no magic: it's just using Google and other search engines to find what you are looking for in established magazine and newpaper sites.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Frustration
Hello, MikaSan. I noticed your post over at Kww's Talk page and I thought I'd drop you a note which may help. It's a bit long, but having seen the size of that discography, I don't thing a lot of text will scare you.

First of all, I should mention that I edited your posts a bit to make them easier to understand. I didn't change any words or spelling, but I did separate the examples you listed by giving them bullets (an asterisk as the first character in a line makes the line a bulleted list item) and I trimmed the http junk of the full URLs to make them internal wikilinks.

The other thing I did was to add signatures for your posts so that Kww or any other user (1) knows who wrote the text; (2) can click to your Talk page through the links that are part of a signature; can tell when the posts were added. You can (and should) do this in the future when posting on user pages (including your own). It's really easy, all you do is add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your post, and the mediawiki software does the rest! Your tildes get replaced by sig links and a timestamp.

But about frustration: I see you have been working steadily on The Neptunes discography since at least May 2010. I can understand that you'd be upset when so much of your work gets deleted (some editors go into a fury when you change just one of the sentences!), but for better or worse, it's how a wiki like this works. And, usually it's for the better, even when it causes ulcers and high blood pressure in the editors, because the extra eyes and hands usually lead to an improved article. (The obvious exception is a deletion or addition by vandals, but Kww is no more a vandal than you are.)

So my advice is to take a deep breath, calm down (if you haven't already), and take a closer look at the reasons for Kww's recent deletions. They certainly weren't meant to aggravate you! He was thoughtful enough to provide clear edit summaries, so you should be able to just what he was getting at. And I can confirm what he says: we really need to have only verifiable content based on reliable sources in our articles. That means blogs and fansites are not accepted (not even yours). It also means anybody can delete unsourced material when they see it, especially if they've given enough notice.

From what I've seen here and in the edit summaries, I think you had that chance, but didn't react quickly enough, so Kww moved into action on The Neptunes discography. It could have been me, or any other editor. When that happens, though, try not to let your frustration boil over into a rude posting or insulting edit summary (or whatever); check that you do indeed have reliable sources, or find them, and then confidently re-add the material that you can actually verify.

And that's how we build a great encyclopedia. Keep up your hard work in that direction! &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And by the way, as I see you made some edits to The Neptunes discography while I was composing the note above on my steam-powered computer, I have another, serious word of advice: Re-adding all the material that Kww just cleaned out as unsourced with only a small percentage of new references is a Really Bad Idea. I suggest you revert your edits yourself and then re-add the few things you've sourced (easier option), or go in now and remove every last bit of content you just re-added without any reference whatsoever (much harder option). The fact that fansites aren't accepted as reliable sources does not mean the solution is to remove the refs to the fansites. Good luck, and remember to add the refs before or with the content, not after. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado
You need to find a reliable source that shows a recording was actually made. Not that the Neptunes thought about it, or that someone hired them to make it, or that they were seen in a studio, but that the recording was actually made.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Confused about format of The Neptunes discography
Hello, MikaSan. I apologize in advance for the length of this message, but I'd like to clearly explain my confusion. I hope you will read through it all.

At The Neptunes discography, the short little intro says, "Singles are in bold, album names/releases are in italics." This is a little weird, since the Wikipedia Manual of Style tells us that album titles are (automatically and naturally) in italics (so this is right, but we don't need to say so), and that song titles (be they singles or not) should have quotation marks around them. The use of bold should really be reserved for headings and the first mention of the article's subject. However, I understand that the bold currently in the article is trying to communicate something (i.e., that the songs were singles).

The problem is that I can't make out the format of the entries. Look at this excerpt that I've copied from that page:

1991
S.B.I. (Surrounded By Idiots) - Surrounded By Idiots (Studio Session) (All Tracks Produced By DJ Timmy Tim aka Timbaland)
 * Skull, Caps & Strip Shirts (Samples Michael Jackson's Human Nature)
 * If Ur Freaky Baby (Samples Michael Jackson's Lady In My Life)
 * It's Like That (Samples Patrice Rushen's You Remind Me)

1992
The Party - All About Love (CDM) (Produced By Teddy Riley, Additional Drums By Pharrell Williams)
 * All About Love feat. Magnum, The Verb Lord (aka Pharrell) (Future Mix)

Wreckx N' Effect - Hard Or Smooth (November 24) (Produced By Teddy Riley, Written By Pharrell Williams)
 * New Jack Swing Part II
 * Rump Shaker (#2 US R&B/Hip Hop) (Single) (August 25)

I know next to nothing about these artists and their works (okay, I admit I may have heard of Michael Jackson). But I understand these are some works that are supposed to be published musical works (it's a discography) that were written or produced by Williams, Hugo, both, or as The Neptunes (as per the revised intro). The works were apparently published/released in 1991 and 1992, as indicated by the headings. And I guess the things in italics are albums. That much seems pretty clear.

Then I get lost. The very first thing, S.B.I. (Surrounded By Idiots), is in bold, so I understand it's a single. It appears to come from the album called Surrounded By Idiots (Studio Session). But what are the lines that follow? Is Skull, Caps & Strip Shirts a song? It's not in bold (but doesn't have quotation marks, either) so I guess it's a non-single song. But what is its relation to S.B.I. (Surrounded By Idiots)?

Skull, Caps & Strip Shirts has a note, apparently telling me that the song(?) samples Michael Jackson's Human Nature). "Human Nature" is linked, so if I click through I see that it's a single, which explains the bold. But why is Michael Jackson bold? He's no single, and he's not the subject of the article.

Then comes "If Ur Freaky Baby", without quotation marks, which might be another song title. Apparently it samples Michael Jackson's Lady In My Life. Again, Jackson is unnecessarily bold (and needn't be linked again). But "Lady In My Life", which I happen to know is a song on Thriller, is also marked in bold, although it was never released as a single.

This strangeness goes on through most of the article, which makes it very confusing. On top of everything else, none of this stuff has any reliable sourcing, so maybe it ought to just be deleted instead of reformatted. It's not clear what The Neptunes had to do with the 1991 entries anyway; the note says that "all tracks" were produced by Timbaland, so again I guess we're talking about multiple songs, but what did the Neptunes have to do with them?

Could you take some time and delete the unsourced and uncertain material (it can always be re-added later when we have references) and use proper formatting to clarify the rest? It would really make a big improvement to the article. I'm watching your page, so if you want to reply, explain or ask questions about the above, you can do it here. Thanks, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Singles (or Singles') section at the end
It wasn't until I saw your edit here that I realized we had two sections of singles on the page. Ordinarily, the Table of Contents works itself out automatically, but since we're not using a regular TOC that didn't happen. Still, I think we can do away with the confusing apostrophe, if only we knew which direction to move in (rename of heading or hidden id for the TOC). Can you tell me what that section at the end of the page is actually for? Is it a relisting of the singles listed by year up above? (Please answer here; I'm watching your page.) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand. The explanation you put on my Talk page says those are the Neptunes-produced singles listed by year, but then you changed the heading to "Neptunes Singles", which makes it seem as those singles are all performed by the Neptunes. That makes it sound like that second table on the page, which is the singles they performed (as far as I can tell). I would have expected a heading more like Neptunes-produced singles. (If that's what they really are; I suspect I am still misunderstanding what's on the page.)
 * But I'm still not sure we need that separate section anyway. It seems that all of these singles are already listed in the by-album listings above it (although I haven't checked them all). I'm thinking that maybe we could consolidate the listings into a tidier format, maybe a neat table of some kind. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Back and forth at The Neptunes discography
Hello, MikaSan. I want to respond to your complaints which you voiced in your recent edit summaries. You shouldn't feel as if you are under attack or something; I am trying to work with you to help improve the article. Let's look at the two most recent changes:
 * In this first edit, you reverted several of my changes.
 * You reapplied bold to the artist name, when that is not appropriate according to the Manual of Style.
 * You replaced a dash with a hyphen against MOS:DASH.
 * You capitalized "early" unnecessarily (I've noticed you tend to capitalize too much).
 * You removed the entire David Greewald reference, but gave no reason for it.
 * You replaced the full citation I had added for the hollywoodreporter reference with a bare URL.
 * Your edit summary said, "Trust me that tune is produced by Pharrell, he's even featured on it, im doing this 10 years already, you got there many sources that say hes on the album, if he wrote it he produced it". Unfortunately, you're still missing a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, in that we depend on reliable sources to provide verifiability. It's not enough for me to trust you, every other reader has to, too. And the best way to make that happen is to provide references to reliable sources. You have provided no reliable source that guarantees that writing means producing. (I also haven't seen anything that says "he's even featured on it".) So the refs we have after my edit outweigh the unsubstantiated claim in your edit summary. I hope you see what I mean.


 * In this next revision, you again removed a number of changes I believe are fixes and improvements:
 * You reapplied bold to Solange Knowles, again contrary to the Manual of Style.
 * You restored the piped link to Solange Knowles, making it point to Solange, which is the wrong page. I removed the unnecessary pipe; you reverted to the wrong target.
 * You replaced Solange's dash with a hyphen against MOS:DASH.
 * You restored italics for the untitle album; we italicize only album titles, and since we don't know the name of this one (assuming it ever even comes out), I removed the inappropriate italics.
 * You reverted to the overcapitalized version of the "Third studio album".
 * You repeated the same bold artist and hyphen-instead-of-dash errors on the T.I. line
 * You added bold to the song title, when song titles shouldn't be bold (MOS:BOLD).
 * You removed the quotation marks, when song titles should have quotation marks (MoS (Quotation marks)).
 * You removed the information that Williams produced the song. Why?
 * You removed the complete citation I provided for the source you provided; you turned it back into an overlong, ugly bare URL.
 * You completely removed the reference citation I found and added which told us that Williams produced. That's too bad, because otherwise we would not know it. Of course, you removed that info anyway, so maybe you don't want the proof, either (although I can't guess why).
 * On this second reversion, your edit summary said, "stop changing every single stuff I'm adding, its not featuring Williams its featuring Pharrell, The Neptunes produced it." I have three things to say in response to that, and I hope it will clarify what I'm trying to do for you.
 * I am only changing the stuff that needs it when you add it. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm changing everything, but it's clear that you are not a native English speaker, and it appears you have not worked on many other Wikipedia discographies. I consider myself to be strong at English, and I do know how WP discographies are expected to look (and I'm familiar with the Manual of Style).
 * I don't see the differentiation about "it's not featuring Williams; it's featuring Pharrell". We're still talking about the same guy, and I used the family name in accordance with WP:SURNAME.
 * How do you know "The Neptunes produced it"? What is your reliable source for this information? The earlier Billboard article says Williams produced it, with no mention of Hugo or The Neptunes. Why does your unnamed source overrule this one I've cited?

Well, how's that for a long post? I thought it would be good if I went into detail, and I hope it helps you understand now why I've been making the changes I have. What I am hoping is that you will keeping providing sources for the content on the page. Then we can remove whatever still lacks reliable sources, and clean up what's left in a neat list (or, as I mentioned earlier, a table). The result should look more like other Wikipedia articles. I am glad to help you get it there. That's how I'm trying to help. Please don't think I'm just trying to undo your work! Regards, &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Neptunes discography. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. ''
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

MikaSan, you have added "Beat Goes On" and EJ - Riot (Studio Session) here and again here and now again here. The former item ("Beat Goes On") is sourced only by theneptunes.org, although you have been advised repeatedly that since it is a fansite, it is not considered a reliable source for our purposes here. The latter item (EJ thing) is sourced to a soundcloud.com page which gives us no reliable information about the artist, album, song, or involvement by the Neptunes. It is simply a sound file posted by some unknown user going by the psedonym "VaRCity virginia our City". I could just as easily post a recording of my grandmother's snoring and say it's a work by Rihanna, Chad Hugo, and George W. Bush. The sources are unreliable and you should know better than to try to add claims referencing them. You certainly do not have justification to revert their removal. Your edit summaries do not address the problem.

You removed the citation needed tags from 4 and Finally Famous but did not provide any reliable sources: 1st time, 2nd time and 3rd time. This is quite rude, as I added those tags especially to help guide you to making reference improvements in small, manageable steps. If you don't have any sources, just say so, and we can remove the tags and the titles they are attached to.

You added a song called "Uh-Huh, Uh-Huh " here [and again here supported at first by http://soundcloud.com/livehouseent/uh-huh-uh-huh alone. This is merely a sound file posted by somebody called "Livehouseent", with the page title "UH-HUH UH-HUH". This is nothing like a reliable source. It would be hard to find something which supported the claim less. There is nothing about Hugo, Williams, or The Neptunes on that page. We have no idea who Livehouseent is. Anybody can post to that page. The sound file itself tells us nothing. Your addition of http://thetimbalandpassion.blogspot.com/2011/12/sbi-uh-huh-uh-huh.html doesn't help, because that page also includes very little information, and is a fan blog besides. The removal of this unsourced content is justified; you addition and re-addition is not.

MikaSan, you keep making these (and other, earlier) reversions without paying attention to the message included with them, in the edit summaries and on this talk page and now also on the article talk page. The message is that reliable sources are required on the discography page itself; it does not matter what I "can hear on the net" or what is on other pages "here on Wikipedia" or whether you say in an edit summary that "those are all real tracks". We must have reliable sources on the page. Adding more inadequately sourced entries at this point is disruptive, as you should understand by now. You need to provide sourcing for the items already present, not add more unsourced junk. If you can't provide reliable sources for your many entries after all this time, at least don't get in the way of their removal. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk)'' 10:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding "Uh-Huh, Uh-Huh" to The Neptunes discography (as you did again here) until you get some better sources. As I have explained, you have no reliable sources showing a connection between the song and The Neptunes. Also, please stop replacing full reference citations with bare URLs. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This has been going on for too long.
I've tried to explain things to you. JohnFromPinckney has tried to explain things to you. I will try again. You must use reliable sources that explicitly say what you include in the article. Not guessing from pictures. Not knowing because you should already know some other fact that isn't in the source. Not guess because some gossip magazine said something about a "sighting". It has to explicitly say what you include in the article. Review WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL. Try to follow them. If I don't see your editing skills improve, your ability to edit will be revoked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't taken the time yet to remove all of the unsourced tracks on the article. I'm about to. I know that you are a fan, and I keep hoping that you will try to bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. The problem I have is that when John attempts to repair your work, you undo his fixes even though you know that his edits are only bringing the article into line with what is expected. You have to stop that, and have to start working within the policies that have been pointed out to you.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to also add a brief explanation. I've been watching The Neptunes discography for over two months now, and my very first inclination was to delete all of the unsourced material, and reformat what's left. However, I did not do that, because I knew that Kww wanted to help you learn Wikipedia's standards, making you a better, even more useful contributor. I saw him give you some chances to add references where they were needed, and I decided to be as patient as him. But an entire week went by, then two. Then an entire month, with very few good, reliable sources added to existing entries; meanwhile, several other, new entries were added, not all with good sources.


 * I have taken a step-by-step approach so that you can clearly see what I'm doing, and why. I hoped you would understand why each inadequate reference was rejected, so that you could find better ones. Instead you have usually just re-added the same poor references.


 * You've now asked Kww and myself to remove all the unsourced data. I am more than ready to do that, and I would be inclined to delete the entire Upcoming projects section, too. But the reason I haven't done this already is out of respect for you and your work thus far. Do you really want us to clean out that page? Have you found all the usable references you can for what's there? Or should we wait a few more days? How much longer do you need?


 * Please reply here on this page so the conversation stays together. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I just want y'all to let me do my thing I've been doing all this time, If there are unreleased tracks that have been found on the net and exist then, they have to be added like all other unreleased stuff thats been added by me, If i'm gonna add them then y'all can be sure it ain't no bullshyt and about the upcoming projects ill try my best to contribute to the wikipedia page with all the source material that its needed, so I just want y'all to let me do my thing, let me add the unreleased stuff just look how I've contributed to the site, this is not a big deal, its just a Neptunes production list on wikipedia a small article, I just wanna Inform the fans and the people MikaSan (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no way that's going to happen. It's simply impossible. If you continue to do your thing, I'll have to block you from editing entirely. I thought I had been clear on that. There's flexibility in the way information is presented, but WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL are non-negotiable points. If you can't learn to conform to them, there isn't a place for you on the project.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

September 2013
Please do not add or change content, as you did to My Name Is My Name, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  STATic  message me!  23:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Neptunes production discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanessa Marquez. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timbaland production discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Da Hood. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Carmack
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mr. Carmack, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2014/03/mr-carmack-auckland-and-wellington-shows-this-may/.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Mr. Carmack.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mr. Carmack.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mr. Carmack


A tag has been placed on Mr. Carmack requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-uEcQsZtSsEJ:22tracks.com/ams/encore/66412&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. red dogsix (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Carmack
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mr. Carmack, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://mrcarmackfan.blogspot.com/p/discography.html.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Timbaland production discography
Hello MikaSan. I posted a message on the Timbaland production discography talk page in regards to cleaning the page up and making it less cluttered (it's a mess with excessive trivial material, such as little recording sessions that weren't officially released). Please feel free to comment. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes! I'll try to clean it up when i'll get the time, thanks for the help Mika` (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC) !

Proposed deletion of Mr. Carmack


The article Mr. Carmack has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. red dogsix (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Mr. Carmack for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mr. Carmack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mr. Carmack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. red dogsix (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring notice
Your recent editing history at Timbaland production discography 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have protected Timbaland production discography for 1 week in order for you to discuss the issue Boodiland on the talk page. It is not an endorsement of the current version of the page, but rather a measure to get you two to work it out instead of reverting each other. Unless you come to an agreement with Boodiland, if you revert again after the protection expires, you may be blocked even if you don't technically violate WP:3RR. I have issued the same notice to the other user. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I'll try to come to an agreement with the person ! Mika` (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Timbaland production discography
Hi, received your message. In my opinion, I think you should contact an administrator (e.g. User:Materialscientist) and ask them for assistance. I'm not an administrator and other than reverting edits there's not much else I can do. I'll keep an eye out for any further developments. Regards Denisarona (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop doing this. Neither of you has made any attempt to discuss this material, or explain the edits. I can't tell which of you, if either, is making correct edits. The material is unsourced. I don't know if it's real. Continuing the edit war is likely to either get both of you blocked or the article protected. Take it to the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The other editor is User:Boodiland. Meters (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Famousbirthdays.com as a source
Hi MikaSan. I noticed that you recently used famousbirthdays.com as a source for information in a biography article, Mr. Carmack. Please note that there is general consensus that famousbirthdays.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello --Ronz, I didn't realized that I've used famousbirthdays.com as a source, here is another source for the personal information https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/mr-carmack/profile/ Mika` (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say it, but that's no better. Maybe you could find something directly from the person? --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Unreleased work
I removed a bunch of "unreleased" entries at Timbaland production discography because they were not referenced or the referencing was poor quality blogs or youtube videos. Unreleased stuff needs to be verifiable by citing a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep all this tunes you see are availabe on the net, there are no reliable sources for those tunes exept youtube and other streaming websites, it took me almost 2 months to write all those entries, you might go ahead and start deleting all hip hop producer entries that people wrote after all those years, anyways I see your point, I'll add all sources soon. (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * One of your sources was listed as this fan site, which is unreliable per WP:SELFPUB. Another occasional source is Youtube, for instance this snippet from Tink, which doesn't have any published details about who produced it. Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not unreliable stuff like this. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't keep restoring the removed content without providing a reliable source. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:MikaSan/Mr. Carmack


Hello, MikaSan. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mr. Carmack".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Jalen Folf  (talk)  13:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)