User talk:Kalope

Kalope, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kalope! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! I JethroBT (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at X (Ed Sheeran album) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Avril Lavigne. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at X (Ed Sheeran album) 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing.

Please see MOS:BLPLEAD. Do not alter nationality to heritage. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

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.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You've been warned way too many times to not edit war. If you continue this behavior once this block expires, you'll be blocked indefinitely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

If you continue edit warring on the Ed Sheeran article, and insist on inserting speculation that does not belong in an encyclopedia, I will take on board the admin comment above and request a permanent ban. I'd also advise you to use references when inserting material that is encyclopedic: that's twice I've had to insert a reference to material you installed.Carlos Rojas77 (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Block

I've blocked you for one month for edit-warring and WP:BLP violations at Ed Sheeran. See WP:GAB for information on how to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Sheeran

Cease removing pronunciation (its required because it's not "add", it's "plus"), which is in the body of his article, and in the album article itself. I appreciate you are a fan, however your edits are not helpful on this.RyanTQuinn (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:RyanTQuinn, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:32, 23 November 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

+ pronunciation?

Would you mind explaining to me why, exactly, is the pronunciation of a symbol is required. Kalope 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Ask Billboard, MTV, Allmusic etc.WisconsinPat (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Instead of you being rude, would you please answer my question? Kalope 22:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Game Boy music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gamewave. 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) 10:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Nina Nesbitt

I am not sure it is vandalism. It looks more like a content dispute to me. Please see here. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ed Sheeran

Hi Kalope. I see that you've restored the citations on the article's lead summary. I removed it before per WP:LEADCITE. Though, I'd support the addition of inline citations on the first line since "singer-songwriter" and "occasional actor" aren't discussed yet on the main body.

Also, when using citations, please use those coming from reputable and appropriate sources.

Regards. --Efe (talk) 09:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

To clarify my last edit on Ed Sheeran: most artist don't have Grammy nominations in the lead section, because only wins are relevant for an intro. Another point, 'Grammy' is cited three times there. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Cornerstonepicker, you said "most" artists, not "all". Plus, if it's cited and correct, there's no reason to delete it. It's not like there's a whole bunch nominations listed on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • |unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the "most artists" I'm talking about, are WP:Good articles. I didn't say it is incorrect, both nominations are written twice in the article, as if once wasn't enough since it is not a win. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Once in the summary, and again in the Music career section. A lot of articles are like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalope (talk • contribs) 23:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

which ones (from WP:Good articles)? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Steven Curtis Chapman page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

HLists are not supported in musician infoboxes

And lists are only recommended when there are more than three items: {{infobox musical artist}} (see the note. It does not offer a professional look either. It looks like a Mac user in 1989 when they could create bullets and DOS users could not. The only reason for lists, either flat or hlists, is for accessibility. Finally, singer-songwriter is a musical genre, not an occupation. Feel free to discuss this on the subject's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Joe Harris

Just curious as to why you are so interested in Harris. Are you a Cavs fan (Cleveland or UVA)? Are you from his hometown? If it seems like I edit the article a lot it's because I created it and I put all of the articles I create (over 500 at this point) on my watchlist, so I usually see edits to them. I also took the picture of Harris on the article at a UVA game. Just curious, since it seems like the main basketball article that you edit. Rikster2 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a Cleveland Cavaliers fan, lately I've been only editing his and Matthew Dellavedova's page, but I usually edit other pages. I was devastated when I found out that the managers of the Cavaliers let Joe go. He's a very talented player, and a future champion, that's a huge loss for them. But I saw that his page could use some editing and decided to add some informations and cite them. That's really cool that you took the picture, though. - Kalope

Mo Williams

Thanks for your work on improving Cavs articles. Consider getting consensus for this edit re: Williams at Cleveland Cavaliers in lieu of escalating the edit war. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the user above was clear. Get a consensus, because Williams didn't do anything significant to be included in the lede. There are more All-Star players from the past who aren't mentioned, so stop trying to own the article. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba (talk) I told this user if Mo Williams were to be traded aand he didn't have much of an impact, then I would agree for his name to be removed. But he's STILL on the team, and he's not retiring yet. But the user completely ignored me, and reverted my edit anyways. I try to be a professional about it, but once again, the editor wanted to remove William's name, because he's not talked about by the media like the "Big 3". By the way, Williams's name was previously on there before I ever edited the page. – Kalope

I would suggest that you help establish a new consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association#Notable_players_in_team.27s_lede_section. While it's understandable that there will be disagreements among editors, you are aware that edit warring is not accepted and we operate on consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Bagumba (talk) I am aware that edit warring is not accepted and that it's not professional. Believe me, I hate the idea of going back and forth and disrupting the page, but I explained to the user on why Mo Williams' name being on the page isn't threatening at all. But the user just keeps saying "he has no significance", and that's not a good reason at all, considering his name was already on the page. I want to work with other editors as peacefully as possible, but when edits on pages are being made based on opinions then that will start disputes between a lot of editors. But I will take a more professional approach from now on. My apologies. – Kalope

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kalope. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Psychedelic rock

An article that you have been involved in editing—Psychedelic rock—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --MASHAUNIX 12:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DeMarcus Cousins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center. 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) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kalope. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kalope. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)