Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 9 July 2017

SPI

I'm in Australia, I assume very vary away from you, Newimpartial. Kellymoat has this become personal for you somehow? I haven't interacted with you in days, and now you've made this massive SPI request, trying to investigate pretty much everyone I've had any sort of first, second or third degree connection with. You even tried to investigate someone who responded to a RfC simply for agreeing with my stance. And then there were your "helpful" contributions during the Morty C-137 ANI. All this because what, I questioned the reasoning for your edit on The Life of Pablo and it turned out the consensus you thought existed didn't actually exist? You need to learn to concede a point every once in a while and drop your bizarre vendetta against me. Cjhard (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I pretty much laid it all out there in the SPI. There is nothing personal about it.

You and I both know that's not true. It was a horribly misconceived SPI, as have your continued attacks against me. Stop being a jerk and drop it. Cjhard (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

And yet, if you read it, the dots all connect to validate the investigation. Kellymoat (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, stop being a jerk -- is this another one of your numerous "but he was personally attacking me" complaints.Kellymoat (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

If you truly think all the dots connect to validate the investigation, then the SPI must have been a mistake by the CheckUser. With so many potential puppets, and all these dots connecting to validate the investigation, there simply must be something at the bottom of this. There's no way you could be wrong, or mistaken. I strongly encourage you to take these connected dots further. Cjhard (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

So, in other words, it is completely normal for someone with 2 edits to respond to an RfD? Completely normal for two accounts to have not been used for a decade, but have both started being active within the last 3 months? Completely normal for two users to approach two users about accusing one user of about being a sockmaster, both accusing separate people, on the same day?

If you can't see the justification to open an SPI, then you are blind. Kellymoat (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You're arguing with entirely the wrong person. You know what happened when my SPI request on you and Elmodivot failed? I dropped it. Take a page out of my book. You'll be happier. Cjhard (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

You dropped it because it was proven false, and because no other weird instances happened. Unlike you, which seems to have this air of oddities surrounding you. Kellymoat (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Mummy (2017 film)

Could you please stop removing the fact that The Mummy (2017 film) is a horror movie?

Source?

From a reliable 3rd party reviewer, not a press release from the movie studio. Kellymoat (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha!

I have found a source that Change is not a pop rock song! It is a contemporary country song! Check it out! Since you do not have a source that Change is a pop rock song, I win! RugratsFan2003 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Google is not a source. Nor is that how genres get sourced.

And, a side note about your attitude - As far as your "win", you can't actually win in this situation. I am simply making sure you adhere to Misplaced Pages Guidelines. I could care less about the actual content. If your edit complies, it won't be reverted. THAT is the only way you can win, but (if this was a competition) that would actually be considered a victory for me because you did it properly. Kellymoat (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I read the genre warrior page, so that made me decide to just remove the mention of a genre in the infobox. By the way, you deserve no credit, as it was Cjhard who introduced me to the genre warrior page. RugratsFan2003 (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Be careful who's advice you follow. He's making more enemies than he is friends. In fact, he only approached you because of you were on my page - The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Kellymoat (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kellymoat and RugratsFan2003: Mind explaining what the heck is going on here? I've had to delete a silly request for adminship twice RugratsFan2003, and I note you edited at least the second one Kellymoat? Please tell me this isn't all related to the above thread(s)? -- There'sNoTime 20:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Consider the above moot, as RugratsFan2003 has been blocked - Kellymoat, everything alright? I noticed the message at the top of your talk page. Feel free to drop by if there's anything bothering you -- There'sNoTime 20:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Twice today, and at least once the other day (right before his previous block). Also worth noting - he has used this IP which is currently blocked for a month.

I tell ya, I am a magnet for the nutjobs. Eh, but why should the web be any different than IRL. Kellymoat (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, just yell if it gets to you too much, there's plenty we can do to help out - Misplaced Pages itself is a magnet for all sorts -- There'sNoTime 21:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Magna Carta Holy Grail

Hey Kellymoat, wasn't there a consensus against removing this wording on Jay Z and Kanye articles? This editor appears to have done so at Yeezus as well. Ss112 08:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ss I have reverted those edits. But, as far as the content goes...

Misplaced Pages is the land of the "Do over". If someone doesn't like the results, they can try again and again until they get the results they like. It is still the currently accepted wording, but if you look at this and this, you'll see that someone is trying hard. Requesting a third opinion, not liking the result, opening a request for comment hoping for a different result.

It's so bad that I opened an unsuccessful SPI on two dozen users. I mean, are we really to believe that someone with two edits choose that day to to respond to an RfC. But the case was closed for "poor reporting", and the users weren't even looked at. Kellymoat (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kelly! (regarding The Life of Pablo)

Hi! I was wondering if you could help me out. Currently, The "The Life of Pablo" page only includes one of the two album covers. There was a time when it included both. Since I am a new user, I am having trouble figuring out how to add the secondary (is it really) cover back since it deserves to be there -- he never changed the cover, just released an alternate. I would also suggest that the primary cover for the album returns to the original cover (https://rapdose.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image-8.jpeg), since, again, the current cover on the page is, in his words, "another" one. I understand that TIDAL eventually changed the cover to the alternate one (as did every other streaming service/his website), but it makes more sense to have Kanye's official cover be the first one seen when looking at the page. One of the primary conceptual elements of the album is its state of flux. I'm happy to hear you out if you disagree! Zlernersinsheimer (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

if it was there before... I would check the edit history. There was probably a reason why it was removed. Kellymoat (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Your recent editing history 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—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. Zabboo (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)