User talk:Medxvo
February 2023[edit]
Please stop editwarring on Grammy Award for Album of the Year. I have reverted your edits. There is virtually no reason to be overusing a specific image where is an abundance of images, including recent ones. Your continued, unreasonable disruptive edits may result in you losing your editing privileges. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 10:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not using a specific image. I have used one image for the most recent recipient section, and another one for the achievement section. What you are saying only means that you don't even look at my edits before reverting them. Please, at least, look at the page before editing anything. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is February 2024 by the way! Medxvo (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know what I'm talking about. You're using the same image that's already been used in the infobox of Swift's biography. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:IMAGEUSE policies. Minimal use of an image is advised. Your continuous abuse of reverts on that page is not acceptable. ℛonherry☘ 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is it advised, or is it a must? Anyways, You should've just changed the image. My problem was your caption, not the image. You are changing everything by writing her achievement in the infobox instead of who is the most recipient, by doing so, her achievement will be gone next year when there is a new recipient. I fixed the problem in my last edit. Please stop harassing and following me, you are tracking my edits and changing them purposely and you just did so with the Jack Antonoff edit. You added a citation needed for my phrase and didn't do the same for the 1989 phrase which is exactly the same phrase as mine. You are tracking and harassing me personally. This is not constructive in any manner. Medxvo (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- "You should've just changed the image. My problem was your caption." Then you have changed the caption alone. I do not have any problem with the caption. You should have not simply reverted the image again and again. I have been editing Jack Antonoff way before you even had an account. You are free to check that article's edit history for my contributions. I am strongly against harassment, so please do not throw around words to see what sticks. Please try to communicate your intention better next time. Do not simply revert contributions. That's unconstructive and quite simply annoying to those trying to better the article. If you had reverted something you did not want to revert fully, then at least make another edit to partially restore the content you don't have a problem with. Let's work together. Collaborate with your co-editors. That's all I can say. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Then you have changed the caption alone". If I had done that, I would have had to write the achievement section all over again as well as change the caption, because the achievement section is not written in your edit. All of that because you don't want to just simply change the infobox image of my edit and you keep reverting to your edit, wanting me to change basically everything. I was not "simply reverting contributions". Your edit did not have the achievement section and the caption needed to change in my opinion. The fact that you've been editing "before I even had an account" does not add any credit to you. This is a form of bullying towards new contributors. You haven't edited Jack Antonoff in ten months, and you edited for the first time since then just after my first time editing there. It is a strange coincidence if you are not actually following and harassing me personally. Please stop tracking me, and if you have a problem with an infobox image just change the image, don't simply remove other contributions on other parts of the article just because you want to change the image alone. That's all I can say. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "I would have had to write the achievement section all over again". Yes, you have to. Your laziness is not Wikipedia's problem. You shall only revert prose that you want to revert. Not revert everything just because it's comfortable. Do not even edit if you cannot follow some of Wikipedia's most basic editing policies. Coming to Jack Antonoff, your argument holds no talking points supported by Wikipedia. I'm an editor of Jack Antonoff, the page is in my watchlist for years, and I added a maintenance tag to a sentence that was *recently added* and had no citation. Everything is justified. Adding one citation to one sentence to an article I've edited before and have on my watchlist will never be "harassing". Maybe next time add a citation and stop adding unsourced content. Good luck. ℛonherry☘ 05:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not the lazy one when you are the one who is reverting my whole edit when your problem is with just one image. "You shall only revert prose that you want to revert. Not revert everything just because it's comfortable. Do not even edit if you cannot follow some of Wikipedia's most basic editing policies." It's been 5 days and you are still blaming me for reverting and you still can't get that you kept reverting when you only wanted to change the image. This does not make any sense and the conversation is going nowhere. I was not editwarring in the article. If everything was okay with my edit except the image, you should've changed the image alone. Let's work together instead of calling each other lazy. The problem with the article has been discussed and solved days ago. Let's stop here. I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative. Medxvo (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- "I would have had to write the achievement section all over again". Yes, you have to. Your laziness is not Wikipedia's problem. You shall only revert prose that you want to revert. Not revert everything just because it's comfortable. Do not even edit if you cannot follow some of Wikipedia's most basic editing policies. Coming to Jack Antonoff, your argument holds no talking points supported by Wikipedia. I'm an editor of Jack Antonoff, the page is in my watchlist for years, and I added a maintenance tag to a sentence that was *recently added* and had no citation. Everything is justified. Adding one citation to one sentence to an article I've edited before and have on my watchlist will never be "harassing". Maybe next time add a citation and stop adding unsourced content. Good luck. ℛonherry☘ 05:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Then you have changed the caption alone". If I had done that, I would have had to write the achievement section all over again as well as change the caption, because the achievement section is not written in your edit. All of that because you don't want to just simply change the infobox image of my edit and you keep reverting to your edit, wanting me to change basically everything. I was not "simply reverting contributions". Your edit did not have the achievement section and the caption needed to change in my opinion. The fact that you've been editing "before I even had an account" does not add any credit to you. This is a form of bullying towards new contributors. You haven't edited Jack Antonoff in ten months, and you edited for the first time since then just after my first time editing there. It is a strange coincidence if you are not actually following and harassing me personally. Please stop tracking me, and if you have a problem with an infobox image just change the image, don't simply remove other contributions on other parts of the article just because you want to change the image alone. That's all I can say. Regards. Medxvo (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "You should've just changed the image. My problem was your caption." Then you have changed the caption alone. I do not have any problem with the caption. You should have not simply reverted the image again and again. I have been editing Jack Antonoff way before you even had an account. You are free to check that article's edit history for my contributions. I am strongly against harassment, so please do not throw around words to see what sticks. Please try to communicate your intention better next time. Do not simply revert contributions. That's unconstructive and quite simply annoying to those trying to better the article. If you had reverted something you did not want to revert fully, then at least make another edit to partially restore the content you don't have a problem with. Let's work together. Collaborate with your co-editors. That's all I can say. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is it advised, or is it a must? Anyways, You should've just changed the image. My problem was your caption, not the image. You are changing everything by writing her achievement in the infobox instead of who is the most recipient, by doing so, her achievement will be gone next year when there is a new recipient. I fixed the problem in my last edit. Please stop harassing and following me, you are tracking my edits and changing them purposely and you just did so with the Jack Antonoff edit. You added a citation needed for my phrase and didn't do the same for the 1989 phrase which is exactly the same phrase as mine. You are tracking and harassing me personally. This is not constructive in any manner. Medxvo (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know what I'm talking about. You're using the same image that's already been used in the infobox of Swift's biography. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's WP:IMAGEUSE policies. Minimal use of an image is advised. Your continuous abuse of reverts on that page is not acceptable. ℛonherry☘ 20:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"Citations not needed for the lead"[edit]
While you are correct in saying that citations aren't necessary in the lead [1], they are necessary if said content in the lead is not sourced in the body. Leads should generally be a summary of the body but as you've been editing since 2022 I trust you know this is not always the case. I hope you are being careful to make sure the citations you are removing in the leads of articles are not for content that isn't mentioned later in the article. Ss112 08:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The lead single was mentioned in the article with a provided source. The announcement and release weren't mentioned but they were referenced on the third and fifth references. I've added now a phrase about the announcement before the already-written reference. Thank you. Medxvo (talk) 09:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not talking specifically about that album; I only linked that to refer to what you said in the edit summary, which is vague. I am talking about in general you should know that not all articles that have sources for statements in the lead have those same statements present and sourced in the body. There's also no guideline against including citations in the lead, so there's no imperative to remove all examples you can think of. Ss112 14:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the sources from the lead in that album because they were mentioned in the article, except that the announcement and release details themselves weren't mentioned so I told you that I added a phrase about it after seeing your message to make the sources more notable in the article, and I thanked you for pointing that out. I know that in general citations can be included in the lead if it's not stated in the article itself. But in the case you're talking about, they were not necessary in my opinion, the lead single details and the sources of the lead single and album release date were already written in the article. When I said Citations not needed for the lead I meant the citations that I have removed, not citations in general. And I don't think that I have removed all the examples I could think of, unless they were unnecessary in my opinion. Thank you. Medxvo (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am not talking specifically about that album; I only linked that to refer to what you said in the edit summary, which is vague. I am talking about in general you should know that not all articles that have sources for statements in the lead have those same statements present and sourced in the body. There's also no guideline against including citations in the lead, so there's no imperative to remove all examples you can think of. Ss112 14:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Album recording dates[edit]
Hello, thanks for this edit. Could you please add the sources you said (MySpace) for the Dec 2007 and Sep 2008 dates, either to infobox or to the prose? Currently the only source for the recording dates of Fearless (Rolling Stone dated Oct. 2008) wrote, "Swift spent nearly eight months in Nashville studios recording 50-plus new songs", so if you could not add further sources for verification we'll have to remove the information. Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Same issue for Red btw. Ippantekina (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can share these links with you here (I am not quite sure if you can add them as sources for the article), as fans collected all of her MySpace posts on a blog, I can share the links of the exact dates.
- December 2007 posts and September 2008 posts
- You can find the December 5, 2007 post when she says she was at the studio planning for the album, and on December 23 she says she has been recording all month.
- She says on September 25, 2009 that she recorded Forever & Always the other day as the final song and finished recording all of the 13 tracks, on September 30 she says they already started working on the CDs, etc. That means the album is 100% finished.
- For Red, all of information were from her Lover Journal which has her handwriting on it. You (or anyone interested) can buy the journals and can find them, as I have already provided the dates of each event. Medxvo (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can't you add the Lover Journal ref because you have it while I don't? It's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for the information you add and not mine. "You (or anyone interested)" is just irresponsible. Ippantekina (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- There is probably a misunderstanding. I have the journals, that's why I said you can buy them if you want. I don't have their pdf and I do not know if they exist and this is a form of piracy that I do not want to be part of. I provided the exact dates of her handwritten pages which should be easily accessible to anyone who has the books, it is not my responsibility to buy the journals for anyone interested. This is similar to "Credits are adapted from the liner notes of [an album]". We don't buy the physical editions for everyone just because they are interested in seeing the credits themselves. Please tell me how to help more and I can help, I am not being irresponsible.
- Also for the Fearless one, I have found an Buzzfeed article which used a part of her September 25, 2008 post, here, which actually used another fan blog as a source (!) that posted her post here and the September 30 post here. Some of fan tweets with a screenshot of the original post, here and here. Sadly the screenshots are cropped and do not have her name on it, but they have the date, time, comments & kudos count, etc.
- These are the links of the original September 25 post and the September 30 post which are now deleted, I can't find their archive but they existed. I would love to know your opinion about these sources. Medxvo (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can't you add the Lover Journal ref because you have it while I don't? It's your responsibility to provide reliable sources for the information you add and not mine. "You (or anyone interested)" is just irresponsible. Ippantekina (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)