User talk:Valboo

Valboo's page

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ouija Board, Ouija Board, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smiths (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) 11:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:Consensus for what consensus actually is, because you're edit summaries are getting irritating. Dan56 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did here to The Weeknd. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not the result of a vote, it is "determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Information on songs from an album, that dont have enough info to warrant an article of their own, should be merged to a section in the album article (MOS:ALBUM). If you dont have a guideline or policy to cite in response to this, then stop reintroducing your edit to The Weeknd. Dan56 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of a consensus, there's always a poll. Your arguements are not relevant for this edit because they don't concern a BLP but albums. You state sentences from guidelines that are not relevant to The Weeknd as it's BLP. Contrary to what you say, biographies can talk about music, songs and production. Sorry, you're not an administrator. Valboo (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isnt (Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Since I'm the only one citing any guidelines, here's another one, per Wikipedia:MUSICIAN#Scope: "All articles need not be identical, and there is obviously a wide variety of information which may be appropriate to some articles and not to others." You cant find anything in Elvis Presley's mentions of his songs (which deal with musical changes in his career; see WP:Musician#Scope) that is remotely parallel to your addition of an insignificant ranking of songs that have no notability. Your addition does not fit anywhere with the layout at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Article guidelines (try to refute this guideline's relevance), so the information should be deferred to the album article, unless you are interested in creating articles for the two songs? Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a new section at the bottom of the talk page and asked other editors to chime in. Feel free to respond there. And please, address the guidelines and perhaps offer some for your own argument. Thanks. Dan56 (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited By the Way, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sparks. 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) 09:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Nigel Gray page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valboo. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Smiths, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pretenders (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) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valboo. 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)[reply]

Davey2010, You've used a tool to revert my edits. Yet, I put back the legacy section in the version that has been present for years, right before as it was reverted in August 2017[1] by an user who is blocked for an indefinite period of time.[2].

You qualified me as a "genre vandal"; a vandal is someone who spoils an article including elements that don't have anything to do with the subject of the article. When someone edits with reliable sources, they are certainly not a vandal. Do not revert any of my edits again as they are perfectly valid and supported by wp:reliable sources. Valboo (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The least you can do is presenting excuses after making such a mistake. Valboo (talk) 20:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Davey2010 WP:TPO, as if I had written a harmful post on your talk page. Is it a joke? I was the one who was insulted by you for being called "a vandal" whereas I just reverted an edit made by an user who is now blocked for an indefinite period of time. You're refused to apologize and saying you've made a mistake. It should have been simpler and polite instead of refusing to reply me. Valboo (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Which part of "Your comment has been noted." did you not understand ?, Had you gone to the fucking talkpage in the first place and stated all of this beforehand I wouldn't of assumed you were a genre-vandal, TPO was inregards to you constantly posting on my talkpage, I have no interest in discussing this further so kindly stop pinging me. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valboo. 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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Morrissey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Bloody Valentine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm going to hold off on further editing for a bit to see if other editors have opinions about the lead sentence. I did, however, want to note that I found your edit comment about "misogynist editing" to be problematic for both WP:AGF and WP:NPA reasons. My objection to listing roles beyond singer in that first sentence is that she is primarily notable as a singer, with the other roles being fairly secondary. Which is not to say they shouldn't be in the article, I just don't think the opening sentence should include them. You may disagree, but I don't believe an assumption or accusation that I am acting out of misogyny is merited. CAVincent (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Smiths. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Aoidh (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that the edit warring policy is explicit that An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. You made 5 reverts within a 24 hour period (19:20-19:24, August 14 2025, 20:50, August 14, 2025, 21:21, August 14, 2025, 00:10, August 15, 2025, 00:17, August 15, 2025), and while the ANEW report made at that time was closed without comment from any administrator, it was a clear brightline violation of WP:3RR. Several threads during that time were not actioned before being archived, not because they were invalid but because administrators did not review and comment on them before they were archived, and this should not have been taken as permission to continue simply because the report got overlooked. No further reverts were made while the edit warring report was open, but once the thread got archived at 15:46, August 17 2025, the edit warring immediately resumed with further reverts at 23:17, August 17 2025 and 21:39, August 18 2025. I have blocked you because there is no indication that you intend to stop constantly reverting to your preferred version. Once you are unblocked or the block expires, I would highly suggest resolving the talk page discussion through consensus and consider dispute resolution as appropriate rather than engaging in further edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aoidh:, you did not well your job.

  Had you counted the reverts per user, you would have noted that one user did 4 reverts in a row and the other user did three reverts in a row. And there isn't any consensus for the current version. The user with 4 reverts in a row should have be banned too following your logic. I am waiting for your action. Valboo (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Part 2.

  @Aoidh Why did you write that nonsense text in green, these are words that I didn't write nowhere. Do you treat every user with childish shortcut like this ?

  Other remark. Had you bothered to read the talk page of that article, you would have remarked that I have advanced a compromise and pinged the users. Users are supposed to reach a compromise: the other administrators did notice that those users are sticking to their guns and refuse reasonnable edits to improve the article. So your decision is bad. And I had to inform you of that. I doubt you will get it but it had to be said. Valboo (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You were blocked for violating WP:3RR, and for continuing to revert to your preferred version without consensus once that ANEW report was archived. No other editor violated 3RR by making four or more reverts in a 24 hour period as you did. The text in green is taken verbatim from the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy and was not written in a way that implied that you at any point wrote that text. I read the talk page of the article, and that is precisely why I quoted that part of the edit warring policy. It was cited to point out that your rationale on the talk page is not justification to engage in edit warring. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule that you violated, others did not. - Aoidh (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aoidh there lays your mistake. The version of the other user doesn't have any "consensus" so why do you bring that term here , Plus, what is rich is that they are the user who had introduced that part in the article. An user who doesn't accept their edit to be improved. That is against the philosophy of Wikipedia - our aim being to improve the quality of content. Valboo (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You were blocked for edit warring and it is your conduct that caused you to be blocked, see WP:NOTTHEM. I mentioned the lack of consensus for your preferred changes because it is important to discuss and resolve when there is a disagreement instead of edit warring. I am also aware that the content you are edit warring over has been in the article since April 2024 and August 2024, and who added it at the time. - Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aoidh we have got a radically different view of the situation. Then why do you put these 2 diffs on the table at the end of your post. Don't you notice the unproductive attitude of the user you satisfied. I had improved the article, and found out a better source for Artic Monkeys as Far Out Magazine is a poor source that mirrors wikipedia content in many articles. So I had added instead NME which is a highly regarded source for music content and even that was reverted by that warrior user. You gave satisfaction to this kind of people. I hope you are glad of your bad choice. Valboo (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion that you are improving the article and that others are being unproductive by not agreeing with you is not justification for edit warring. The issue, and why you were blocked, is your edit warring. Nothing anyone else has done justifies that. I'll leave this discussion for another administrator to review the below unblock request, but I do not believe you should be unblocked at this time as you have not demonstrated any understanding of why you were blocked, and focusing on perceived issues with other editors instead of addressing the issues that led to the block does not give me any confidence that you will not resume this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is your burden that you will have to bear for letting people who consider an article their own, block and revert any new improvement. Bravo. Valboo (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

One other user did four reverts in a row and wasn't sanctioned which shows how impartial was Aoidh's decision. The least they could do would be to reduce this sanction which is extremely severe as that encourages the other user to keep on reverting 4 times in a row without being threatened by a sanction. Extremely bad arbitrary decision below anything.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you:
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:33, 19 August 2025 (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.

Valboo (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that doing 3RR in 24 hours is forbidden. As this rule is accepted, I would like to be unlock or at least that the sanction be reduced. Valboo (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You worked hard to demonstrate today that lifting the block would be a mistake. Nothing here convinces me otherwise. You are blocked for violating WP:EW but don't even mention that (only WP:3RR) in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2025 (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.