User talk:EscapeX

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:User page for more information. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask on the WP: Help Desk, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!--GoShow (...............) 03:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome and pages! EscapeX (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson's tour called Bad[edit]

You moved an article back to your preferred name even after your previous move was reverted. In the future, a disputed article move must be put forward by following the instructions at WP:Requested move. Thank you.

Please feel free to offer your opinion at Talk:Bad_World_Tour#Requested_move. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

I want to apologize, because I little bit messed up your edits in Victory tour article. Finally I put all your edits back, because they are reasonable and make article better.

Only one thing remains: please do not change the Bad tour link on that page to Unity tour link, because Victory tour is more closely connected to Michael career highlights, not to his brothers careers. Victory tour could have just as well been Michael solo tour in 1984.


Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bad (tour). 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:

  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.

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. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is your only warning. The next time you move Bad (tour) over the declared consensus for the article title you will be blocked for move-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United We Stand: What More Can I Give, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sex Machine, Living in America and Feel Good (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aaron Hall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It won't make sense out of context, but here's my question[edit]

You've been asked before, but where is your source for the song "Best of Joy"? If you cannot back up your claim then it's just heresay and will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013[edit]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Bad 25. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on This Is It (concerts). 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:

  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.

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. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources just like what the IP user told me to do and yet he still reverts my edits. EscapeX (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Read the text again, I frankly don't care who is right or wrong, this is an edit-war and both of you may end blocked or the page protected. What I am not reading, is both of you discussing why it should be added or removed, or if your reference is reliable or not, or asking for other people opinion. If you continue adding it, or the IP removing it, I will take this to WP:AN3. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your edit wars[edit]

Just so it's all in one place - here are the reasons why you are wrong to continue to revert in the three articles.

  • This Is It (concerts) - Frankly this information is just garbage. You will need a reliable source before making such preposterous claims. Even if true, it would just be trivia, and for both reasons it will not be allowed in the article. Also, as explained on the talk page, and in my edit summaries, it was not a "tour", so that's why we are not using that word.
  • List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson ‎- the word "Featuring" is promotional language from record companies to namedrop other artists. Furthermore, it was not in popular usage until roughly the HIStory era, and so was never used on Thriller, Bad or Dangerous. Don't believe me? Than go dig out your CDs and read the booklets. All you're doing is removing information (whether somebody was a vocalist, remixer, or guitarist is an important difference that is not lost on the typical listener). Plus, again, it's just misc trivia.
  • Bad 25 - With the CD and DVD in the Deluxe Edition, Sony are essentially giving you two copies of the same recording of the same performance of the same songs in the same order. As such, adding a tracklist for each disc is just repetition and overlinking and adds no information. Notice Live at the Royal Albert Hall (Adele video) only has one tracklist for DVD, Blu-ray and CD.

Wikipedia is built upon consensus, not an individual's personal preference (no matter how knowledgeable they are). Feel free to contend these points in a logical way, but simply pressing undo is not the way to do it. There must be 6 or 7 people undoing your edits. Please take the hint and don't waste any more of anybody's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to get this whole reverting issue out the way and I'm sure you do too. It's mostly just you who keeps on reverting my edits.
  • This Is It (concerts) - How is this information garbage? If someone were to add the 2012 Olympic results or the recipe for apple pie on this page then yes, the information would be garbage for this page since it has nothing to do with the This Is It page. The set list was not made by me but the person who created included a sentence that explained where the set list came from. One of the sources I added is the Michael Jackson's This Is It film and Blu-ray/DVD features which sourced all of the songs on the set list (except for the songs that were going to premier during the tour) and you can't really get more reliable than the film itself. I read that "River Ripple" and "Best of Joy" were going to premier during the tour which is why I didn't remove the songs myself since I already knew about it. After you kept on reverting my edits because these songs were included in the set list, I searched for the sources and added them on to the page. The name of the tour is just "This Is It" unlike his past tours like the "Bad World Tour" which included the album's name and the words "world tour" in the name. It is still a concert tour. If you want to remove every trace of the word "tour" on the page then that includes Category:Michael Jackson concert tours and it won't included This Is It in the category.
""River Ripple" and "Best of Joy" were going to premier during the tour" - THAT'S the problem right there. That phrase is the bone of contention. You're saying it like it's truth. It's just a rumour with nothing to back it up. Those songs don't appear in the film, an have never been mentioned in connection with TII.
It's not a rumour, it's been confirm. If it was false, I would had remove it myself.
No. It has not been confirmed. If it was, you would be able to use the confirmation as a reliable source. If it's not mentioned on the TII BD, or in the Michael booklet, or any other official source from Sony or the Jackson family, then it wasn't going to happen. Please just leave this issue now.
I'll say this again, I put the sources in for the songs like you asked. It was confirmed.
You seem to have a different understanding of "confirmed" to everybody else. Confirmed means that there is incontestible evidence that proves the song was going to be performed at the concerts. Either a setlist, or some evidence of costumes or a rehearsal.
And again, you keep calling it "the tour", when it is NOT a tour. Touring means to travel around and visit different places. That's why the Dangerous World tour was in a different city every night. TII is different. It stayed in London, and didn't go anywhere else.
Still nothing on this. You have given no reasons for keep calling this a tour.
  • List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson - This page was nothing more than a redirect page before I edited it. Whenever I was recreating the page, I wanted to be consistence with the wording. For the songs that included a guest performer, I chose to use the word "Featuring" since it is the most common word (nowadays) used for a guest performer and to keep the page modern (we don't live in the 70s or 80s anymore). I know that albums like Off the Wall, Thriller and Bad didn't use the word "featuring" on the back cover (Thriller is the only one to use the word "with" while the other two only mention the song titles on the back cover) but that doesn't mean they aren't included in the song. The album MICHAEL did use the word "featuring" on the back cover. Instead of using "With Patti Austin", "Duet with Siedah Garret", "Rap by Shaquille O'Neal" and "Featuring Lenny Kravitz" for different songs, I used "Featuring" to be consistence and that covers all of those songs. I made the standard to be "Featuring [Guest Performer]" and for songs where Michael Jackson was the guest performer, I made the standard to be "[Lead Artist] featuring Michael Jackson [and other guest performers if included]". For artists that only performed backing vocals, I made the standard to be "Backing vocals by [guest performer]" or if the song was by another artist, I mad the standard to be "[Lead Artist] featuring Michael Jackson on backing vocals". I'm not removing information. Why would I remove information on a page that I made? You're the actually the one who has removed information on the page with your edits. If you want to help me create a new standard to describe guest performers then go ahead and tell me.
It doesn't need to be consistent because the guest performers are doing different jobs. "Duet with Siedah Garret" is very different to "Akon remix", which is different to "Guitar intro by Slash". We need to keep the distinction, and that means using the wording as per the album booklets. "Featuring" is just a modern fad, and is mostly just used with dance songs for promotional reasons. It tells you nothing about what the guest performer did.
There is no "Akon remix". If you're refering to "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008" then that's "Michael Jackson featuring Akon". I do keep distinction. Like I said, if a guest performer is just providing backing vocals then I typed "Backing vocals by [Guest Performer]" as oppose to "Featuring [Performer]". Wikipedia, for the most part, is consistent. An example would be how the discography pages are made. If you're going by the album's booklet then it should be "Featuring Lenny Kravitz" since that's what is says in the MICHAEL booklet. Featuring is what used most often now.
In that specific case, the album and single both said "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' 2008 with Akon". Other songs like Scream are listed as duet. Yet more songs simply have a slash or dot between the two names. Again, you're wrong to keep changing this. I said before, Wikipedia is built upon consensus and fact, not on your personal preference. Drop it.
Yes I know that it uses "with Akon" on the single cover but what difference does it makes between "Featuring" and "With"? It's still a Michael Jackson song featuring someone else or someone else's song featuring Michael Jackson. Just stop editing.
Several people consider there to be a big difference between the two terms, and for this reason we should go with what the cover actually says. Since you think there's no difference, why do you keep reverting?! Besides, when "featuring" falls out of fashion and is replaced by something else, are you going to come back and change every page on wikipedia?
  • Bad 25 - I don't own Live at the Royal Albert Hall but I'm assuming that the tracks are in the same order, same length and all of the tracks are included in the Blu-ray/DVD and CD with no version removing or adding tracks and that the only difference between the Blu-ray/DVD and CD is the format since there's only one tracklist on the page. If that's the case, then that one tracklist covers all formats of it and there's no need to have other ones. While the tracklist for Bad 25 Disc 3 and Live at Wembley July 16, 1988 are largely similar, there are differences between them. Even if they did have the exact same tracklist in every detail, Bad 25 is an album with four discs (deluxe edition) not just one disc and should have a tracklist for each disc. You're not going to go on a website or read a booklet that says DVD tracklisting: Same as CD 3. If Adele released a four-discs album like Bad 25 that included the CD and DVD format of Live at the Royal Albert Hall then keep a tracklist for each disc even if they are same since it's showing the tracklist for those individual discs. It is not repetition. Repetition would be saying the same sentence twice. Repetition would be saying the same sentence twice. (Like that.) If an album includes two discs that have the same tracklist but in different format then that's just the way how the album was made and doesn't count as repetition since it is only giving the tracklist for each disc.

If you have any other issues or come up with ideas then say them. EscapeX (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"largely similar"?! It's the same concert! The songs are the same and the order is the same and the writers are the same. The only difference is that the DVD has the refreshment break and includes two additional bonus songs from another concert. If you own or have ever watched the DVD, you will know it's exactly the same as the CD, with no difference whatsoever. Sony are just giving you the same thing twice, one being audio, and the other being video.
That's why I said largely similar. It's the same concert but the CD and DVD are not exactly the same. The DVD includes "Bad Groove" and two more songs and all of the songs have a longer length. EscapeX (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are exactly the same. You're obviously missing something here. They cut the 10-minute refreshment break, and shortened some other parts that were just crowd noise (because CDs are not as long as DVDs). But they are the same concert, the CD is the full thing, and so a duplicate tracklist is not needed. The fact that you have just managed so well to summarise the difference in less than one line means that the same thing can be done in the article. I've made my points to you, and you have not addressed any of them. There is nothing else I can do or say to convince you, so I would recommend that you take a break from editing for a while.
I never said they were different concerts. The CD and DVD are from the same concert but they have differences between them. I have addressed your points but you keep on choosing to ignore them. I would suggest for you to stop editing to end this. EscapeX (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, where was that? I missed the part where you addressed anything. If the album had been a "triple play" and included additional MP3 copies of the concert, would you have repeated the tracklist again for that?

List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson[edit]

Hi, I thought I'd bring to your attention a couple of WP policies/guidelines, namely WP:OVERCAT which does suggest that Michael Jackson should not be linked every time his name is mentioned, and WP:3RR which says the continual undoing of some else's work is edit warring and can get you banned/blocked from editing WP. I suggest you start a discussion on the talkpage and see if you can reach a consensus with other editors. I am posting this here because of the overlink issue and have no firm opinion in respect of other matters, or who is right and who is wrong. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has commented at WP:ANEW, as have I. Please add your comments to the report. If you fail to do so, you risk being blocked for the slow edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring warning on Bad 25[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bad 25. 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:

  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.

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. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.  Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before returning[edit]

Could you pls read over WP:OVERLINK.Moxy (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want you to get blocked again just for reverting back to overlinks version (not worth it) - so i will highlight the portion of the text that is relevant'
  • "A term should be linked, generally, at most once in an article's lead, perhaps once again in the main article body" .Moxy (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would add that image captions often have links in addition to lead and body links. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning[edit]

  • Warning. Since your block expired, you've made four edits, including edit-warring on the same article (List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson) that got you blocked in the first place. Moreover, your edit summaries misrepresent what you're doing. One more disruptive edit, and you will be blocked, and for longer than the last time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain to me how my edit summaries "misrepresent" what I'm doing? I'm doing what I said I'm did. EscapeX (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop editing and just talk[edit]

BOTH of you need to stop editing the page right now!!! I need to make clear that you were blocked for Wikipedia:Edit warring - not for the content of the edits. Both you and the IP need to talk over edit-waring - we have basic conduct expectations pls see Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you guys cant resolve the problem on your own get help see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests. Moxy (talk) 08:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.  ‑Scottywong| chat _ 17:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last attempt to resolve List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson[edit]

Today you made an edit to this article which essentially introduced the word "duet" around 45 times. Almost all of the songs cannot be described as a duet, which crucially is for two singers performing together. This is usually when they both sing parts of the song, often interspersed with each other so that it is as if they are singing to each other. The word is not used for choirs, or when a 10-second rap is added to the end of a song. Wrecks-N-Effect is a rap group, A Brand New Day (The Wiz song) is a full-cast recording, for the song by 3T, the word featuring is better, and USA for Africa and Artists for Haiti were both large-scale collaborations. We must use the right word, and each song is different.

This is very similar to your insistence on using the word "tour" for the This Is It (concerts), which stayed in London. These are English terms which have specific meanings. This can be found on Wikipedia, but also in any dictionary. Accurate language is important, and doing an automatic find/replace operation to make everything look the same is not something you should be edit-warring over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since "featuring" is apparently wrong, I'm using "duet with" as a substitute. EscapeX (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Featuring" is widely used. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I said but the IP user said it shoudn't be used. When I created the page, I used the word "featuring" but the IP user replaced "featuring" with other words and when I change it back, he keeps on reverting it. I explained it to him that "featuring" is commonly used but he won't listen. EscapeX (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, you cannot just pick one word and use that on every song. It's about using the right word for each song. Some songs are duets, some songs have a guest rapper or guitarist, and on the Michael album, they use "featuring" (which is common for 2000s rap/r&b, but was NEVER used for 1970s disco or 1980s soul songs). More to the point, we don't need to pick our own words, because Michael Jackson already picked terms that we can use - he included them in the booklets that come with every CD.
          • "Featuring" covers all of of that. Instead of using all those different terms such as "duet with" or "rap by", we can use "featuring". EscapeX (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, it's about using the right word at the right time. It would not be correct to use the same word when describing every song. "Featuring" works well for modern dance music such as "Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars", and importantly, the word is used on the cover. However, it is not appropriate for other genres, or for songs from other eras. I would correct any page that refered to "The Comets featuring Bill Haley" or "The Vandellas feat Martha Reeves". For other songs, eg heavy metal, or songs with a clash of genres, the word VS is to be used.
            • You say "using all those different terms" as if it's somehow a bad thing. I call it being descriptive. Trying to unite the terminology is just editing for the sake of editing, and loses information.
            • You still didn't answer the question which I have asked you twice before- what have you got against using MJ's own words, from the album covers?
            • Your latest edit makes some improvements, but you have carried over some previous bad content. As with the other article, I will make a series of small edits, with a comment about each one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.37.54 (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. 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:

  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.

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. Please reach consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring in article space. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't worry, it's not an edit war. We're discussing how to resolve this. EscapeX (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over the name of the Bad tour[edit]

You know, you've been edit warring over this issue since August 2012 when I first warned you. Slow motion edit warring is still edit warring. The name of the tour is "Bad", reflected by the majority of sources shown at Talk:Bad_(tour)#Requested_move_2012, by the general consensus arrived at by discussion there, and by the second move request which you started, but which closed with strong consensus against your preferred naming: Talk:Bad_(tour)#Requested_move_2.

Please respect article consensus or start another move request, this time with convincing arguments. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring, as you did at List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for resumption of edit warring and disruptive editing at List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson, which is the same behavior that led to your last several blocks. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EscapeX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Reconsider this block situation. I know I was block for the edit war which I tried to stop again and again. Please understand that my edits aren't not to vandalize an article but to help improve it. I do not edit an article to disrupt it. My intention is always is to improve an article. I'm for one am tired of always having to deal with the disruptive edits of the IP user. I compromised with him but not even that was enough. For instance, when I created the page, the word "featuring" was used (here's the page before the IP user edited it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_recorded_by_Michael_Jackson&oldid=529802021) but he didn't like the word "featuring" so we got into an edit war over it until I gave in and removed the word "featuring" completely from the article. (here's the page after the word "featuring" was removed: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_recorded_by_Michael_Jackson&oldid=538836683) After a few more edit wars, I redirected the page to end the edit war. (here's the page when I redirected it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_songs_recorded_by_Michael_Jackson&oldid=551584929) I would rather redirect the article that I created than have this edit war to continue. I will stop this edit war and prevent them from happening again. I'm here in Wikipedia to help improve articles. EscapeX (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not demonstrate how you will stop the behavior that led to your block. However, you may wish to take up our Standard Offer: wait 6 months (i.e. until October 23), and then come back and request unblocking, stating clearly how you plan to edit constructively. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Rogers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EscapeX&oldid=1075739329"