User talk:Petergriffin9901/Archive 34

Gone for good?
Just noticed your edit here indicating retirement. If this is true, then know that you'll be missed. I know you haven't been very active for a while either way in quite some time, but would hate to see you officially leave the site. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it's never good to close the door completely. I prefer the "semi". It's good to hear from you buddy and glad to see you still thriving. Sometimes when I start editing I'm reminded of how toxic the climate here can be, so its unfortunate. I'll always definitely be around to watch out for my Mimi ;)-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a relief! I'm still thriving for sure. Sorry about any toxic climate, but it's good to know you'll still be around. Mimi and her articles do need your care, especially the more recent material. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mimi
if you are a fair editor you will actually do the research first instead of jumping to revert. You are reverting an edit that restores reliably sourced material that as recently removed. Tell me a good reason you think it's appropriate for you to remove information as such? Just because you feel like empowering yourself amidst a conflict?-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Well mate, I think you honestly could have just fixed the syntax error yourself. As for your reservations on just one source, I'm fairly certain The Telegraph, The Guardian & Variety should be enough to satisfy.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Emancipation of Mimi. 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 that 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.''One more revert on any of those Mariah Carey articles and I'll block you myself. This is ridiculous.'' Katietalk 15:14, 21 August 2017 (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 from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at The Emancipation of Mimi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Katietalk 22:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I have been here for almost 10 years, so I understand the drill. I, as you can see, don't edit often for years now, so when a barrage of stans come for articles I wrote years ago from scratch that are GA or FA, yes, I definitely offed my top a bit. Quite simply, moving forward, I won't revert to warring. I'll be very frank on talk pages and I assure you the outburst won't continue. I request if you can please make this a 24 Hour block. I hope that you can understand being here so long and having invested so much into the article and content, you definitely grow attached (OWN etc.) and guard them. So yes, again I was floored when multiple pages of Carey's were being vandalized. And yes, I see your point of that, but there is no reason to remove reliably sourced information. Perhaps they should consider taking it to the talk page and seeing where consensus lies. Cheers and I hope you can take this frank but honest message to heart.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the block. I recommend following the steps at WP:Dispute resolution once the block expires, including talk page discussion and possibly an RfC. Present your sources in a calm manner for the best results. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the "watered down" block, but not much is different. All that changes is possibly to talk. Again, 24 Hr is usually for edit warring. I think a week is excessive. I gave you my word as an editor since February 2009 that the problem will not continue and was due to prolonged absence etc and I honestly can't be more frank about how I'll be chill and non confrontational or combative. If you could please consider dissolving the block after 3 days since it began and not 7 days I would appreciate it.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I reduced the block; it was reduced to 24 hours. Sorry for any confusion. I should have mentioned the new length before. I did speak to Katie off-wiki prior to reducing the block length to get her view on the block, and the main reason for the length was your lengthy block log which included several blocks for edit-warring. It's normal to receive a block of a week or longer when you have a history of edit-warring. We don't block just to punish, though, and I believe that you'll edit productively, so I've reduced it. That likely won't happen again in the future if the issues recur, just so you're aware. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Petergriffin9901/Sandbox3


Hello, Petergriffin9901. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sandbox3".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — I B  [ Poke  ] 08:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Petergriffin9901/Sandbox4


Hello, Petergriffin9901. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sandbox4".

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — I B  [ Poke  ] 08:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Billboard biz
Do you subscribe to Billboard? Mariah's Vegas and Christmas residencies have some unsourced boxscore data and I can't find sources for them. — Calvin999 09:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey mate, unfortunately I do not.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Am I imagining things or did Billboard write an article about Mariah selling out her 2014 Christmas shows? I can't seem to find it though I swear I've seen it. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 08:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey mate. This & This is what I was able to find. Hope it helps/supports.-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk2Me   23:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've seen those ones. I thought Billboard did one purely commenting about her selling it out but maybe I imagined it. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fall Out Boy - I&#39;m Like A Lawyer With The Way I&#39;m Always Trying To Get You Off (Me &#38; You).ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Out Boy - I&. 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) 18:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fall Out Boy - This Ain&#39;t A Scene, It&#39;s An Arms Race.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Fall Out Boy - This Ain&. 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) 18:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mariah Carey - Side Effects.ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Mariah Carey - Side Effects.ogg. 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) 02:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mimitour.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Mimitour.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) 19:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)