Bgkc4444

Bgkc4444, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bgkc4444! 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 experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your vandalism.

Regarding Homecoming (2019 film), Impact section:

1. Quotes are meant to be in quotation marks. They're not objective facts. they're opinions from commentators. Thus, they HAVE TO BE in quotation marks as per WP:MOS. You know that. 2. "capitalized off" isn't found anywhere in your sources.You cannot add your own opinions in a Wikipedia article.

You've barely made 200 edits. I understand you lack knowledge regarding how things work here. if you're gonna continue to violate Wikipedia's guidelines, I might have to file a complaint and take necessary actions. This is a warning. Thank you. BawinV (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there!

1. What you put in quotation marks was not a quote from any of the cited sources. You did so twice, with different words in quotation marks each time and yet still neither of those quotes were mentioned in the cited sources.
2. Yes, "capitalized off" was mentioned twice in my source. The second cited article says that the performance in question "co-opts, capitalizes and profits off the hard work of Beyoncé, a Black woman, as well as Black culture". The article then goes on to explain that it "in turn contributes to a very long history of white people capitalizing off the labour and culture of people of colour, especially in the realm of music."

Please stop vandalizing Beyoncé articles because you love Taylor Swift. Wikipedia is not a place for you to play around with and ruin other people's articles.

Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Daddy Lessons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Country music awards (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) 10:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 00:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lemonade (Beyoncé album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black literature (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lemonade (Beyoncé album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yoruba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Beyoncé 2016 MTV Video Music Awards performance

Hello, Bgkc4444. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Beyoncé 2016 MTV Video Music Awards performance".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Lemonade (Beyoncé album). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. isento (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Isento! Thank you for your suggestion. However, it is an incorrect accusation. This is not original research, as the material is clearly attributed to a source and the author is mentioned in the article text. This is not synthesis of published material, as I have not combined material from two disparate sources to form my own conclusion, nor combined material from two disparate contexts/topics in a source to form my own conclusion; this is clearly an article on one topic. I'd appreciate it if you could please clarify how this warrants these accusations. In your previous revision, you said that "artists have been "utilising" albums this way for decades prior to this purported landmark" as a defence for removing the content. THAT is original research. Whether artists had used similar strategies before or not, Bowen explicitly connects Swift's Reputation to Beyoncé's Lemonade in this regard. I did not add this material on the article for Reputation; if I did, then you could add other influences for the album. But the article in question is about Lemonade, and so should include information relevant to Lemonade. Please do not remove the content again. Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Bgkc44444

Saying things that go beyond what the source explicitly says is original research (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). The writer says Swift, on Reputation, tells "her side of a bunch of stories that people have already read about her in the press", and that this is how it is like Lemonade. That is completely different from meaning to say Swift was inspired by Beyonce to "utilize her album as a tool to address personal issues solely through the medium of music". You misused the source to support some higher, inflated idea that isn't explicitly stated in the source. Please don't restore the content again. isento (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not add material that goes beyond what the source explicitly says, however I am happy to make changes so that the material matches the language of the source more closely. To add, I do not appreciate you mocking what I wrote in your last sentence. As I know you are aware from the several other editors who have warned you about this, civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and disrespectful comments are unacceptable. Bgkc4444 (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lemonade (Beyoncé album). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. isento (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: I would it appreciate it if you would continue in the same section instead of adding a new one if you're trying to argue with me over the same point - thank you. Please explain how I added my own point of view. Bgkc4444 (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Talk:Lemonade_(Beyoncé_album)#Possible_OR/POV_violation. Your bold edit has been reverted. Follow WP:BRD protocol and go to the talk page instead of restoring your preferred revision. isento (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Black Is King. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Michael Greiner 18:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Michael Greiner! Thanks so much for your help - I was not aware of this issue. I'm still a bit confused about this case. Another user wanted to create an article for Black Is King, but at the time Black Is King was a redirect and they did not know how to convert a redirect to an article, and so they created a draft article through AfC. Instead of just moving the article to the mainspace, I stupidly created a new article with the Black Is King title in the mainspace and copied what was in the draft. There has since been edits made by others to the article. What would be the best way to merge the articles and their histories? Placing a request on Wikipedia:Requests for history merge? Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Yes, I'd start with Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. --Michael Greiner 23:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Michael Greiner: Great, thanks so much! Bgkc4444 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

August 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Lemonade (Beyoncé album). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. isento (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Isento: Hi again! Calling out your racism and misogyny is not considered a personal attack, because there is evidence of this behaviour here. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. isento (talk) 13:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points? isento (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444 - Isento is wikipedia's biggest troll, just ignore him and he will stop. He is angry loner who gets only life satisfaction from harrassing people online. He clearly not happy person. Lpook at how he trests people.. clearly not healthy man in the head. 156.146.56.193 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Ok that's enough. The next post that violates WP:NPA is getting a block for their trouble. No further warnings will be issued. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ad Orientem. Can I ask you to help me please because I don't know what to do. The user is hounding me and I do not feel comfortable making any edits knowing he will try to disrupt them. He also continued making personal attacks on me, including using sexist and derogatory language. I have warned him about this here, but he deleted it from his talk page and has continued this behaviour. What can I do about it? Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

I have left a note on their talk page. If there are any more personal attacks contact me. If you believe they are hounding you, after my note, you may take the matter to WP:ANI. Note: you will be required to produce evidence in the form of a pattern of behavior backed by diffs. I hope this resolves the matter. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you so much for your assistance. I think I'll wait to take it to ANI unless he continues with this behaviour, as I hope your warning will prevent it. Your help is very much appreciated. Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

I think you're the sexist if you think my using the word "neurotic" to describe the writer's content is sexist because she happens to be female. Look in the mirror buddy. isento (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem Here's the more personal attacks :( And he continues to hound me on this article. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

@Bgkc4444 Where is the history of hounding? This looks like a content dispute to me and an RfC is a perfectly legitimate way of handling that. @Isento: I advise you to stay off Bgkc4444's talk page since you seem unable to comment here civilly. The next time you attack Bgkc4444 here or anywhere else, as you did above, I will block you. This should be understood as a Final Warning. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bgkc4444 I am reiterating the warning I posted above and again to isento, I want no more attacks of a personal nature. This applies to everybody involved in this dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: You seem to have been involved in this a ways back. To my mind this looks like a content dispute that is getting very nasty. I have issued warnings all around, which appear to have had little effect. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: We originally had a content dispute which was discussed here. At this time Isento was on my talk page and was uncivil when I gave a polite warning on his talk page. A month later I made further edits to the article, including the addition of material that was related to the material that was under discussion - my addition of this material used the advice that another user gave in the discussion to make it compliant. Isento reverted my addition, and removed other material that I added which was completely unrelated to our content dispute, providing an uncivil explanation in the edit summary here. He then added the section that we are currently in on my talk page. He then decided to further attempt to irritate me by disrupting my edits and writing uncivil comments in a discussion I am in on a completely different article, as you can see here, here, here and here. I wrote a long personal message about all of this on his talk page here, but he quickly deleted it, and wrote the derogatory comments about me that you have seen. I agree that RfC is a legitimate way of resolving a dispute, but this is not the dispute that I have been having with Isento, and Isento only requested the RfC because he wants to continue to hound and irritate me. I feel extremely frustrated. Thank you again for your help. Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Ok, so I've glanced at the discussions and diffs you provided and I am doubtful that there is enough evidence to support a charge of hounding. That said there is no question that some of isento's responses to you have been uncivil. And as you will note, I've issued warnings. But I would also note that you too have made some sharp comments. In your initial response in the first discussion you linked above, you accused isento of imposing their "skewed views" into the article. I could go on, but the bottom line is that this looks and smells like a content dispute that has gotten very testy. My advice is for everybody to take a deep breath and address the issues based on policy and guidelines. The RfC looks like a step in that direction. If you still think there is deliberate hounding going on, you are free to open a discussion at WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: Thank you. I apologise for that sharp comment. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact that Isento followed me to another article and continued to disrupt my editing and discussions there with personal attacks seems like clear hounding to me, with hounding being "the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". I do not see how this can be considered a content dispute that got testy. I find it frustrating because evidently lots of other editors have been at the receiving end of Isento's personal attacks, and he has been on Wikipedia for a long time and certainly knows the rules, but if you are doubtful about how a discussion at ANI would be received I feel like there's no way to stop his constant disruptive contributions. Bgkc4444 (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Isento has a long track record of heavy editing in music related topics and pages. Hounding would require evidence establishing a pattern of this sort of thing. IMO this is not enough to overcome the argument that it was happenstance. And it is a perfectly plausible argument given that you both obviously share similar interests. As for their acidic comments that has already been addressed above. I expect everybody to be civil and correct in their interactions with each other and avoid any provocative language. I don't expect you both to start a mutual love fest. I will be satisfied if we throw some water on the incendiary jabbing. And now, I am off to bed. It's been a long day and tomorrow is looking to be a bear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I don't believe that it can be considered happenstance that Isento's first edit on the Black Is King article was immediately after his "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl" attack, and his edits were all trying to interfere with content disputes I am involved in and his edits and edit summaries directly addressed me and made further personal attacks on me. Thank you again for all your help yesterday, Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Edit warring at Beyonce

Your recent editing history at Beyonce shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. isento (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Isento can you please elaborate on the supposed edit war that I am involved in? Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Yes, I can. isento (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Surprise album, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. isento (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Savage

Please stop describing a content dispute as "vandalism". It is inflammatory and not helpful. I'd also suggest that what you are doing on Savage (song) looks very like edit warring. You'd wise to stop and try and reach consensus about what you are adding, not repeatedly putting it back in and claiming you are reverting vandalism.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Escape Orbit: I am confused how repeatedly removing well-sourced encyclopedic content and adding superfluous spaces into an article can be called "a content dispute", and in fact "removing encyclopedic content without any reason" is an explicit example of a type of vandalism. I tried to engage in discussion with the editor in question here, here and here, but to no avail, and they have continued to repeat such edits. Bgkc4444 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

I know it can be frustrating. But a dispute over what should be in an article is not "vandalism", and I don't see anyone removing stuff "without any reason". If you are adding the content, it falls on you to put a compelling case for adding it. Accusing other editors of vandalism is not a good way to get constructive discussion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I tried to engage in constructive discussion with the editor in question here, here and here, but they refused to engage and continued to repeat their edits, as well as make personal attacks on me, further showing how they are not acting in good faith in order to improve the article. Someone repeatedly trying to remove encyclopedic and neutral material from an article and then someone else reverting that vandalism is not a "dispute over what should be in an article". The user removed stuff with no reason here, for example. The vandalism policy states that "Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." This has certainly not been done here. The onus is not on me to explain why encyclopedic and neutral material should belong on Wikipedia as those are two of the very pillars on which Wikipedia is based. The onus is on users who want to remove encyclopedic content to clearly provide an explanation, otherwise their edits are considered to be vandalism according to Wikipedia's policy. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Bgkc4444

Your draft article, Draft:List of accolades received by Lemonade (Beyoncé album)

Hello, Bgkc4444. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of accolades received by Lemonade".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bgkc4444! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Task Center
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:30, 14 October 2020 (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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Beyoncé Talk

Hi! There is now some disruption on Beyoncé's talk page, and it is completely pointless and a waste of everybody's time. I object to the new RfC proposed by isento. The way the question is formulated, it could lead editors to vote "No" for the infobox just because they'd vote "No" for the lead. Beyoncé has 346 ASCAP-registered songwriting credits, and there is much documentation (accepted on Wikipedia) that justifies the "songwriter" occupation in the infobox; songwriting is definitely one of Beyoncé's very main occupations. Frankly, isento's actions are now very disruptive, and the tone they employ is impertinent and belligerent: "If I were to compile 346 parking tickets, that would not make me a professional criminal.", "It is up to editors to make judgement calls." They have personally decided Beyoncé is NOT a songwriter, and they are thus implying all her 346 song credits to be fraudulent or unworthy. Israell (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: Yes he's just trying to disrupt the page. He only started editing this after I added a source to the article for Beyonce's album Lemonade which said that Taylor Swift may have been inspired by it. He got very angry and started to add negative things on Beyonce-related pages and he hounded me to other discussions I was involved in. If you go higher in my talk page you can see when he told me "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?" which of course made him achieve his aim of making editing a horrible experience for me :( When we had the discussion a few months ago he also kept changing his arguments, the subjects he was arguing on and never actually responding to the points I made. Now, months later, he's still going at it. I hope he realises the importance of editing this article from a neutral point of view and of treating other editors with respect and civility. Thank you for your patience so far! Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, Bgkc4444. isento has now edited one of my own edits, and they've attacked me in the edit summary. See: [1] I've had no choice but alert three moderators ([2] [3] [4]) regarding their conduct and the whole disruption. I believe that RfC should be closed, but I've still added in my comments.

Frankly, I do not think they are going to attain that realization anytime soon. They are being belligerent, uncivil, immature and arrogant. At this point, discussing w/ them is not going to achieve anything unless the administrators get involved and take due action. I've reported them, so let's see what the admins have to say about it. Let us stay calm, and they'll see who's being so uncivil. Israell (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

As for this remark of theirs: "Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points? isento (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)", maybe you should alert the mods (linked above) if they've been taunting you ever since. Israell (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: He has now been blocked for 72 hours. Hopefully this we get him to stop making uncivil comments and actions towards us. Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. isento (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI Discussions

Bgkc4444, thanks for pinging me. I have responded to both discussions on the ANI page. I fully disagree w/ Gwennie's assertions that you're the problematic one. Israell (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Israell, thanks so much! Unfortunately Isento continued with the personal attacks after what transpired earlier this month and hasn't taken any responsibility for it. I once again hope that administrators' actions will cause him to stop making uncivil comments and actions towards us. And I hope this is the last time I have to say that! :) Bgkc4444 (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

So, is the matter resolved? Both discussions seem to have been archived. Also, I've just opened a new RfC [5], this time in regards to the lead of the Beyoncé article. Israell (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, the RfC involving you [6] is still ongoing. Israell (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Israell: Oh that's interesting... Thank you for letting me know, and for starting the RfC as well - I'll contribute to it now. Bgkc4444 (talk) 11:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, thx for weighing in. The discussion, as explained by an editor, is not about the authenticity of her songwriting but about whether or not it notable, and it is—moreso than actress, for instance. We are now running in circles 'cause some editors will just ignore all the compelling points made, and one of them insists to make it all about the authenticity of her songwriting and allegations, and it's time for that debate to come to a close. I and others have made a great point Beyoncé's songwriting is notable. Feel free to weigh in again. Israell (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Before assuming that other editors are "racist" or "sexist", please see WP:GOODFAITH, and please do not use Wikipedia as a tool to manifest your belief (please read WP:POINT). Certainly no editors (except for potentially unregistered IPs) would bother on this site just to dismiss Beyonce as a songwriter because of her sex/race/or whatever reason you may point out. Instead of accusing other editors of disruptive, logically unsound editing, please construct a sound argument to counter-argue. HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please show me where I assumed you were racist or sexist? That's quite a strong claim against me. You brought a source specifically about sexism in the music industry, which says that Taylor Swift speaking about her songwriting "embed a feminist narrative of authorial control within the discourse around 1989 at a time when such narratives were challenged for other female artists who also who also serve as writers and producers of their own work. The source states that Beyonce is an example of such a female artist who was challenged about her status as a songwriter and producer of her own work, because people claimed it was "outside of the masculinized ideal of music authorship". The source then states that Swift was able to rise above that sexism to center herself regarding songwriting, but was partly able to do so because "her whiteness function[s] as privilege that Beyoncé and other artists may lack". You told me to read the source because you said we should be using it. I don't see why you should take hearing what the source you brought said so personally. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bgkc4444, it may be better for us to try not to engage any longer w/ certain editors. It is time for that debate to come to a close, and maybe we should get an uninvolved administrator such as BD2412 involved. Israell (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are now subject to an editing restriction

Hi Bgkc4444, I hope you're keeping well despite the circumstances. I just closed the ANI thread regarding you (with consideration given to the unclosed report you also made around the same time), and found consensus to impose two editing restrictions on you.

1. The first is an interaction ban which prohibits you from reverting, talking to, or discussing Isento indefinitely. They have the same restriction and may not interact with you either. This interaction ban is indefinite and you may appeal it to WP:AN at any time.
2. The second is a topic ban from Beyonce which prohibits you from editing content or pages related to Beyonce as well as prohibiting you from discussing her or her work anywhere on Wikipedia. This ban lasts for 3 months and expires automatically on 6 March 2021 at 00:01 UTC. You may appeal it at WP:AN any time before then.

These are community-imposed bans, and so appeals should be made at WP:AN not to me personally. That said, if you have clarification questions feel free to ask me and I'll be happy to try and help you out. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I hope you're keeping well too and thank you for letting me know. I do have some questions but I will be making an appeal to AN so I think it would best to discuss them after. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Actually, can I just clarify if I am able to reference the editor I am in the IBAN with in the AN appeal I will be making? I assume that this does not count as a violation of the IBAN because it would be impossible to speak about the ban without mentioning the other editor, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you! Bgkc4444 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, per WP:BANEX you can reference the editor and topic when making an appeal though my advice is (1) wait a few days before making an appeal and (2) whenever you appeal, keep references to isento as minimal as possible. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Great, thanks for letting me know. I'll wait a few days before making an appeal and will try to ensure minimal references to the banned topics (although I feel that this will be difficult). Bgkc4444 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: why is the ban expiring on 6 March? If it was imposed 6 January, 3 months would be 6 April. I think topic bans normally start when the discussion is closed but in any case I looked at the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Continued bad-faith accusations and suggestions by Bgkc4444 and although it did start quite a while before closure, it wasn't on 6 December. I don't personally care either way, but I think this should either be a 2 month topic ban expiring on 6 March or a 3 month one expiring on 6 April. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: It was a fencepost error because I'm bad at math. Looking at the discussion again, I don't see any reason to prefer 3 months over 2 months, and from what I've seen the two editors have been handling the restriction well. Out of fairness, I think it is better to honor the explicit date I gave rather than the stated length. So this should be a 2 month topic ban expiring on 6 March (I'll let the other party know also). — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Thank you very much for noticing that. @Wugapodes: Thank you as well. I have also made an appeal here. It doesn't seem like an admin will be looking into the case, but even if that remains the case, it would still be beneficial for me if the points I raised could be clarified/addressed if possible so I can understand the reasoning further. If you do, please ignore the wall of text and look at the abridged version in the second half :) Thank you. Bgkc4444 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Formation

Some images from the song just came up in a presentation I attended, linked to Richard Wright's stories about the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and the racist violence and forced labor that accompanied it. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Oh, that sounds interesting! I saw that one of Wright's old books was recently published. Bgkc4444 (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of accolades received by Lemonade (Beyoncé album)

Hello, Bgkc4444. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of accolades received by Lemonade".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Beyonce in the Formation music video, 2016.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Beyonce in the Formation music video, 2016.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Renaissance (Beyoncé album)

When your edit claims to only affect the Critical Reception section like here, please don't use this to try and disguise other edits as you did. For reference;

• WP:ALT is a field to descript what is in the image for those who are hard of sight. You are supposed to describe what's in the image e.g. a man, a woman, a horse. Not names, hence i had changed the description to be more correct and accurate.
• Listening producers in alphabetical order is the standard for the the producer field hence that's what was listed (you changed this for no reason)
• WP:TRACKLIST says If all tracks were written by the same person or group, this can be stated at the top as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." If several tracks were written by the same person or team, this can be stated as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano, except where noted" or "All tracks written by Dwight Yoakam; 'Nothing' and 'Heart of Stone' co-written by Kostas.". Given this is a long and complicated track listing, it makes sense to list at that the that Beyonce wrote and produced all of the songs.

If you don't like any of these changes you need to discuss them on the talkpage per WP:BRD as you have now been reverted and have provided no valid reason for your edits. You have already been topic banned for editing Beyoncé articles before, don't get yourself banned again. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies Lil-unique1, I didn't mean to disguise anything. I made an edit and Wikipedia didn't warn me that there was an edit conflict for some reason. Thank you for spotting the error! Bgkc4444 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your edits which moved the sampling controversies into the composition section have been removed. The controversies received significant coverage and therefore it is plausible that people will come to the article looking for such information. Furthermore, there is more information about the controversies than there is the actual composition of the album. The information about the sampling is reception to the sampling. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Lil-unique1: I had reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines for this and it is clear that the current placement and wording of the material is not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines. WP:CRIT says to avoid creating sections devoted to controversies, yet this is what you did. WP:ALBUMSTYLE suggests placing any controversy in the section of the article that discusses the subject of the controversy, which is what I did, but again you reverted it. If your issue is that there is now more material about the controversies than the composition, then a) there is also currently more wording in the article about the 'controversies' than the actual critical reception so I don't see how your placement solves this issue, b) you can add more material about the composition instead of continuing to add negative material with undue weight, and c) you could agree with my edits of summarizing the controversies that lasted for a few days into a readable and neutral paragraph instead of writing out the full minutiae of two artists' gripes without any balance regarding viewpoint or the rest of the article. You further transgressed the policy around WP:NPOV by burying praise that artists had for being sampled within a negative paragraph within a 'controversy' section, which should not be acceptable. As you said, people might come to the article looking for information on how artists who were sampled on the album reacted to it, but there was more positive response than negative response, so why try to bury the positive response and lengthen, highlight and exaggerate the negative response? Furthermore, you didn't just move material in the article but reverted wording changes that I made, without any explanation. Please explain your rationale for this as the wording you're using is certainly attributing undue weight to minority (and solely negative) viewpoints and is inappropriate for this article. You removed praise that several artists gave for being sampled on the album, and lengthened criticism two people gave. Please let me know how this is fair or encyclopedic. Bgkc4444 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Ablbumstyle is a guidline and suggestion. It's not always perfect or correct as it doesn't account for every album. Some receive little coverage, others receive lots. Given that there were multiple controversies around the album and they received coverage from a wide range of reliable sources it is warranted and reasonable to assume that someone might want to find such information. It does not make sense to be burried deep within the composition section which should be able the lyrics and the samples. The fact that the samples attracted negative reception warrants it to to be in the Reception section. If anything, you could put forward a reasonable argument that the section should be renamed Reception to music samples or something similar. If anything I'd argue it errs on the side of bias to not include the negative along with the positive in the reception section. The changes you made were quite substantial and should have been discussed BEFORE they were made. That said you were bold in your edit, and per WP:BRD, you have now been reverted. The onus is on you to start a discussion and gain consensus for your viewpoint that this is giving undue weight to the negative critiques about sampling. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Your the main contributor on Black Is King which is now a Good Article. You deserve a nice treat for your efforts :D OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 05:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cowboy Carter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Cowboy Carter song titles

I arrived a bit late to the discussion at Talk:Cowboy Carter#Stylizations, but since you originally posted in that thread, I'd appreciate your feedback on the comment I left if you get a chance. Thanks, Chase (talk | contributions) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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) 00:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)