User talk:RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a technical reason - see User talk:Goforth studios. 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:. Just Chilling (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Beautiful Thugger Girls, you may be blocked from editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

TheAmazingPeanuts, at no point was I disruptive, I've continually sourced the genres mentioned and it's offensive of you to claim otherwise. This album/mixtape/whatever, being a blend of Hip/Hop, R&B, and Country seems to be the consensus of many sources, it's not just my opinion. There could be people who visit the article to get an idea of what genre this mixtape fits in, and just hip/hop does not accurately describe the album's genre. I can see that I've been blocked, and I'm pretty sure it's for this incident, which deeply saddens me. I want to make wikipedia a better place and resource for information. If every source that spoke of this mixtape agreed that this was strictly a hip/hop mixtape, I wouldn't have made the edits I made, but when you have multiple sources claiming this is a hip/hop, R&B, country album, then you're willingly leaving out information. At one point an editor removed the genre section completely. How is that not disruptive, but me adding sourced info is? Maybe I'm 100% wrong, I'm open to conversation. RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There has been two editors, Gentlecollapse6 and SnapSnap, has point out that the genres are not sourced properly, and most of them not even mentioned in the sources, which means these genres you added are unsourced. It's doesn't help you keep genre warring. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * TheAmazingPeanuts, okay, so I noticed Gentlecollapse6 added pop as a genre stating "Several sources explicitly call it pop, including pitchfork". Did my source not explicitly state that the mixtape was country? Does "become more than country album" not imply that this isn't a country album with ties to other genres? Also, I noticed that when you reported me for disruptive editing you mentioned my previous account like it was a big deal, however if you had done absolutely any research, you would have seen that I had that issue completely resolved. One last thing, you never answered my question from last time. How is SnapSnap completely removing the genre section any less disruptive than me adding genres with sources that may not have been the best to include, but still in some form mentioned the genres I added? --RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Friend, do you honestly think this is a country album? I've written for professional music magazines, and I've often compared Thug's style to jazz. But if I were to say this is "more than a jazz album" to articulate my unique take, would you be rushing to include "jazz" in the infobox? Probably not. Part of editing well on wiki is being sensible to the subject. A few acoustic guitars don't make this any more of a country album than a few sitars make Sgt Pepper an Indian classical music album. Relax a bit. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Gentlecollapse6, firstly I would definitely include jazz as a genre if multiple sources mentioned it, and used language such as "more than a jazz album". Also, stating that a few acoustic guitars doesn't make this a country album, is just your opinion. I understand that you disagree with this being a country album, and you probably know a lot more about music and music genres than I do. However, there are multiple sources calling this a country album, and that's what matters to me. (RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC))
 * Why does that matter to you? Is the point of Wikipedia to be a helpful and informative source of information or to mindlessly reproduce every stupid thing a published author may say? For every published claim you'll find someone disagreeing with it (indeed, several sources say that Thug just borrows bits of country on a couple tracks, and that it's not a country album as some expected). Some common sense editorial judgement is not only permitted, it's necessary. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get it. Adding genres to articles are based on sources that explicitly says what genre it is, not because it was mentioned in the source. Adding genres to articles to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive editing, and it will get you blocked from editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * TheAmazingPeanuts, yeah, and I added country because it was explicitly mentioned as the album's genre http://www.thefader.com/2017/06/20/young-thug-beautiful-thugger-girls-album-essay That wasn't my point of view, that was the source's point of view. By the way, you still haven't answered my question. Why was I blocked for adding genres with sources, and SnapSnap wasn't blocked, despite completely removing the genre section? How is what I did any more disruptive than what SnapSnap did?--RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think becomes more than a country album is enough to classified the mixtape as country, Gentlecollapse6 and SnapSnap has point this point out. And removing unsourced genres like SnapSnap did in the article is not disruptive, she have a right to remove them because they not sourced properly. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Like I explained in both of my edit summaries, hip-hop, pop and R&B are merely used as tags in The Fader, not within the article itself, and trap is not mentioned at all. Also, only one song is described as dancehall by Spin.  snap snap  (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was I blocked? If it's for the other account, I've already been through this and was cleared, so what's the matter?


 * Ping Was this latest block an inadvertent double-jeopardy situation? Please see above. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - since User:Ks0stm is unresponsive as with other similar blocks while "busy", can any of you look at why this is a checkuser block please?  SQL Query me!  05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You state: "I was told to create a new account". You weren't. You were asked to change your username. This is entirely different because it carries forward your contributions. Looking at "User talk:Goforth studios" there is a significant history of disruptive edits. You now need to demonstrate that you will edit constructively and, in particular, take edit disputes to the article talk page. Just Chilling (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just Chilling, I was told to either create a new account or change my username, I chose to create a new account. There wasn't a significant history of disruptive edits on my old account, there was a misunderstanding regarding the pizzagate article that got me blocked. I was blocked before anyone even tried discussing with me in this instance. My contributions on all of my accounts show that my edits have been consistently constructive, so if y'all want to keep me blocked that's fine with me. I love this website and I love editing on this website, but I'm tired of being blocked before anyone even tries to contact me. I got the disruptive editing warning message from TheAmazingPeanuts the same time I got the message that I was blocked. Like I said, I'm through editing the Beautiful Thugger Girls article. I understand that the consensus of a few Wikipedia editors overrides the consensus of the sources and music fans, that's fine with me. Just let me go back to editing other articles--RIP Previous Account, You Will Be Missed (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Checkuser Note: First, I will point out that the "username block" template actually recommends creating a new account as the first suggested option for dealing with a username block. (It's not quite "told to create a new account", but it's awfully close.) Secondly, the ping from  has been received and a discussion has been initiated. It may take us a day or two to resolve.  Risker (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I apologize for the mass ping. SQL Query me!  06:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just got your ping. I feel like I may have missed the fact that the original account was blocked for a username violation. I initially investigated based off of the account's username and this AIV report, and somehow it clicked in my head as block evasion despite the original block being a username block. I'm fine if someone wants to lift the block or reduce it to a regular block for other reasons. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) If you reply here, please ping me by using  in your reply. 09:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on Ks0stm's comment, in a show of good faith, I've lifted the CU block. If disruption occurs again, be aware that someone else may block you. Genre warriors are frowned upon. Katietalk 11:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Whisperback
23:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)