Morce Library

Welcome!

Hello, Morce Library, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Travie McCoy. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! – Anon423 (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

License tagging for File:YungBleuMoonish.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:YungBleuMoonish.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Wanna Be Loved (Buju Banton song)

Hello, Morce Library,

Thank you for creating Wanna Be Loved (Buju Banton song).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding title/honorific of BTS

BTS were called "Princes of pop" by times not "Princes of k-pop" Can u change that? Data For Life (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Trey Songz articles

Hi. I notice you've expanded several Trey Songz articles in the last day, but please note going ahead that most singles do not need their own articles if the only sources you can find are mentions of the song in reviews for the album per WP:NSONGS. Also, please make sure that songs are explicitly described as a genre in a source before adding it. You've added several unsourced genres across these articles, including citing this Vibe article directly, claiming it called "Nobody Else But You" "R&B mid-tempo", but the source only describes Trey Songz as an R&B artist and the album "finds a consistent mid-tempo groove". Again, this is talking about the album as a whole and does not count towards the notability of the singles from it. Please make note of this before expanding any more articles. Thanks. Ss112 13:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Playboy (Trey Songz song) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Playboy (Trey Songz song) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy (Trey Songz song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Citrivescence (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the music files you uploaded

Greetings. Recently I noticed that there has been some discrepancy regarding a great portion of the .mp3 files you uploaded to wikipedia. Specifically, many of the files you claimed to have used <10% of the original content is actually more than 10%. Specific examples include File:Pull_Up.mp3 (15 seconds for original 142 seconds), File:This_Ain't.mp3 (25 seconds for original 178 seconds), and File:Nowhere.mp3 (29 seconds for original 193 seconds). Beware of the fact that we do live in a world where 1 minute equals to 60 seconds, please thoroughly check the files you uploaded and correct the incorrect denotations. --2403:18C0:3:2E1:0:0:0:0 (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Genres

In your recent edits, you added genres but the sources you added does not fully supported the genres. In the future, added genres with sources that's explicitly attribute the genre to the work (WP:EXPLICITGENRE). Adding genres like that can be considered disruptive. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:08, 16 November 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) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Doja Cat

Hi, Morce Library. Regarding your edit summary "Hip hop meme ≠ hip hop artist", the LA Times source in the infobox is not citing the headline, but rather the quote from the body which describes her as a "Hip-hop artist and viral sensation Doja Cat" which meets your "hip-hop artist" criteria. The headline just summarises by binding the two into "hip-hop meme star". Thank you :) —cybertrip👽 ( 💬 • 📝) 12:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edits on November 26, 2021

Hello, I'm Rokstarr.Muncha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Rokstarr.Muncha (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi rockstarr, as i already said in your talk Page, i removed some of your added genres explaining you why, It wasnt an unexplained removal of content, and instead of discussing the matter with me, you started an edit war, That's not allowed here, as i already explained to you on your talk page, please stop this disruptive behaviour Morce Library (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Plus, your statement "you’re just a vandalism only account" aimed at me while editing on Adele Is a personal attack Morce Library (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring while warning the other party about the same, and misuse of noticeboards, as you did at Adele. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, my sincere apologies for my misuse of noticebaords, by no means I wanted to behave disruptively. I thought that reverting without breaking the three-revert-rule was allowed, Can I please ask you how should I act next time something like this jumps on me? Just to avoid this messy situation I put myself in. Thank you Morce Library (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to avoid getting in a edit war with another editor, I suggest go to the article's talk page (See WP:BRD). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Pop Life (David Guetta album) does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Muhandes (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Back to Sleep (song). You added a wrong quote with this edit. Don't change sourced quotes. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And AGAIN! You must stop adding extra words to quotes. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spencer^T•C 05:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Spencer: This user is up to the same shenanigans again. Changing quotes, changing quotes ×2, citing a dead source to claim it calls an album a genre that it doesn't, removing credited songwriters for no reason, removing more songwriters as well as removing parts of quotes they evidently don't like...can this editor please be blocked again? They've learned nothing from last time...earlier this month. Ss112 15:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bigdrako.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bigdrako.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Chris Brown

Hi, Morce Library. I was wondering why you keep changing the main picture on the Chris Brown article to more and more unflattering pictures of him? The original article picture that was appearing 2 or so months ago before you changed it was fine.

I updated It. I don't see how it's unflattering Morce Library (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Your account is blocked indefinitely. There is no excuse for how many times you've been caught altering direct quotes. If you can explain to me that you understand that is not acceptable, and promise to stop, I'll consider shortening the block. (You can still edit this talk page to respond to me.) But until you show understanding of that most basic writing concept, you are not ready to be editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand that altering direct quotes is wrong. I'm sorry for all the confusion I might've caused. To disrupt the project really is the opposite of what i want to do in here. I've done my couple of edits that can prove that im not here to write whatever is up to my mind. This time around on Fan of a Fan i changed the direct quote because, as you might see in the tracklist of that album, the source was reporting the name of the song wrong, the song referred to is called "G-shit", not "All the girls love", i would like to invite User: Ss112 to check that too please. On She Ain't You i mistaken the credits for the lyricists with the songwriters ones, my fault, i take full responsability for this distraction mistake. On That's My Girl i checked the source and It was not available, since i dealt with a sockpuppet of User: MariaJaydHicky on the topic of the group that made that song i assumed It was some made up stuff by that account so i automatically removed It after seeing an error into the source's link, my bad, i apologize also for this. On "Strip (Chris Brown song)" though i put the right genre listed by that source, the song Is nowhere listed as hip hop in that source so im not the One that was vandalizing that information, instead i'm the one fixing it, plus I added sourced informations and wikilinks that were removed for no reason, or at least no explanations. This time around i understand that my edits might've been questionable/wrong, but quite frankly i find Ss112's [1] definition a bit offensive and in lack of my good faith. I acknowledge that im new in here and that i might make more mistakes than you guys, so i would never say "you are treating me wrong", but im up to explain this stuff and to improve my presence here any day, WHENEVER y'all feel i need to correct some stuff. Ss112 never contacted me about it and instantly assumed bad faith, to me That's not the most constructive way to deal with It, because, as i already said, you can clearly see in my edits that im clearly not here to vandalize. The other two times i was blocked It was because i was "edit warring", while instead i was just reverting a sockpuppet, and i had no chance to explain myself if not following the block. I'm not asking to be unblocked, im really not feeling in the right position to tell you what you should do in any way, i see you've been here for way more time than me doing good, i'm just asking you some comprehension, id be glad to clear any doubt over anyone of my edits. Thank you so much --Morce Library (talk)

I understand Ss112 comes on a bit strong sometimes, and I get it, I've even clashed with him over it in the past. And I'm sympathetic to newbies too - there really is a lot to learn before one can consider themselves "experienced" on Wikipedia. But my concern is that you don't seem to be learning from the input and warnings you're getting. And as a result you've gotten yourself blocked 3 times in 2 months. It IS a lot to learn, but I'm concerned that your approach looks more like a combination of "ignoring" and "pushing forward anyways". You've got to slow down and take the input to heart. Like with the altering direct quotes stuff - there are ways to make notes and clarifications to comments without altering direct quotes, which are meant to be exact replications of what was said. But you've got to start spending more time talking it out on talk pages rather than reverting and barreling through anyways. Like I said, I can see a path back to editing for you, but you've really got to change your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Sergecross73 I understand what you mean here. And i really thank you for taking your time explaining that to me, i don't take It for granted. Considering the negative results that i've been getting with my edits lately I completely understand that my approach to editing has been wrong. I think i can improve stuff here, i enjoy doing It, and i genuinely care about It. I fully understand that i have to take my time before getting back, not only for punishment but to build myself a restart following a step back that will help me make less of the bullsh* that led me to this. I would be really appreciative to have a second chance whenever you feel like i should, if you do. Thank you for your time--Morce Library (talk)

Oh, so you have explanations for everything now that you've been indefinitely blocked, but not preceding your block when Binksternet asked why you were altering quotes? Where's your criticism of Binksternet? Yet you'll call me out for describing your edits as "shenanigans", which they definitely were considering you didn't leave an edit summary for basically any of them. The time to explain your edits is in edit summaries at the time you make them and especially when experienced users confront you about it and ask why on Earth you're doing it, not after your third block for the very same thing ("the same thing" meaning disruptive editing). There's no excuse for changing quotes and removing genres like a vandal with no explanation. Ss112 08:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear User: Ss112, as i already explained, my first block was not *totally* my fault, i was reverting edits by a sockpuppet of User: MariaJaydHicky (named User: Rokstarr.Muncha) and It got confused for edit warring. If reverting a sockpuppet Is considered to be disruptive to you.... well, i learned the lesson now. You said: "There's no excuse for changing quotes and removing genres like a vandal with no explanation", removing genres *like a vandal with no explanation* Is not my thing sir, do you mean like my Strip edits that you reverted? Where i corrected the genre rightfully putting what the source was saying [you put back the hip hop genre cited nowhere in the source], adding wikilinks and new content that you inexplicably removed? (you re-added some wikilinks the following day though) Or you mean what i did on She Ain't You? Where you already acknowledged that i was right for removing the pop genre on the list of genres of the song, you said it yourself in your last edit summaries of that page why I WAS RIGHT DOING THAT. You said it yourself, who you're trying to trick? Even if you're referring to what i did on That's My Girl you're wrong. I already explained that stuff, i explained it two times, first on the very edit summary (what you're lamenting me for not doing), THEN here, by saying "i checked the source and It was not available, since i dealt with a sockpuppet of User: MariaJaydHicky on the topic of the group that made that song i assumed it was some made up stuff by that account so i automatically removed It after seeing an error into the source's link". Stop trying so hard to make me look like a devil that's writing whatever the hell i would like to write, it's not that. And it's as clear as the sun that it's not that. You're making examples of my mistakes in my edits with anyone but me, twisting it in whatever way you like, to paint me like a reckless vandal. Why don't you confront them with me? I guess i know why, because with me you can't tell me how It went down, because i seem to be knowing that better than you..... Im not saying that i am a perfect editor, im a 4 months old account, im pretty self aware that there's a ton of stuff that i should learn, still. What im saying is, im not a notable villain that likes to write whatever he wants never explaining it to no one whatsoever like you're unrightfully and instantly calling me, i beg you to check my edits and tell me how can you have that impression when im reverting sockpuppets and vandals, adding wikilinks and fixing redirects more than half of the time im here. How can you have that impression? Listen i know that with some of my edits i might have chosen a wrong way to put them, and i apologize for it, im not here to create confusion and im really sorry with you too because i know that that's what happened. But your bad faith aimed towards me and my edits really seems like a manipulation of my good faith mistakes into something else with this sort of propaganda that you're bringing to as much administrators as you can. I'm not putting any criticism on Binksternet because he confronted me, without accusing me of having bad intentions with my edits. I'm begging you, please, expose to ME the edits that you think are inexcusable and "obviously in bad faith", and i'll explain here to you exactly why they were not.--Morce Library (talk)

I did "check" your edits, and from what I saw, time and again, you went right back to doing the same thing that multiple editors had already "confronted" you about. Good luck trying to convince another editor here that that's not bad intent. Your explanations make little to no sense and you've proven you're the sort of blocked editor who will only provide explanations (or rather, make excuses) when you know you're up against it. Too little too late as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not reading that wall of text. You'll be hard-pressed to find somebody who wants to either. You can blame me and rant at me all you like—I'm convinced if it wasn't me who had found your edits to be problematic this time, it would have been another editor and it was only a matter of time before your next block was made indefinite. Goodbye. Ss112 15:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't rant at you, I even apologized for creating any confusion, but i won't take seriously this confrontation with you if you're not even up to read what i said, as you affirm--Morce Library (talk)

User: Sergecross73, I tried to have a confrontation with him about my edits following my apologies, but he said that he refuses to listen to me or check my edits. What more can i do to prove that i wasn't in bad faith? I wrote a whole paragraph to show him why they were not, Ss112 said proudly that he's not gonna read It, but still ironically proclaiming that it's a bunch of no-sense excuses.

I have the most respect for his position, as well as yours. But after months of editing with thousands of edits i think that at least i deserve a discussion where i clarify the good faith behind my mistakes. All im trying to Say is that i understand what i got blocked for, i won't be that impulsive again with my edits, and i will make productive conversations prior about it instead--Morce Library (talk)

Why should I read your wall of text (which absolutely was a rant, by the way) when you evidently didn't even read the first sentence I typed? You just said I didn't check your edits when me saying I did was the literal first thing I typed in my last reply. I reverted something like ten of your edits. Those were the ones I checked, and all were disruptive and things you had been called out for previously yet not responded to. In my opinion you don't deserve a fourth chance. Ss112 03:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I do read everything you're writing, I respect your point of view, and I thank you for taking your time giving it to me. That really was all i wanted from you and im thankful for it--Morce Library (talk)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

User:Sergecross73 said he would consider shortening my block if I explained to him that i understood that that type of behaviour is not acceptable, and here i am to tell you that i am really sorry for making those mistakes, im quite new in here and i understand that i don't have to edit that impulsively when there's a ton of stuff that i still need to learn about wiki, i promise that it won't happen again if you give me a chance to demonstrate it. I really believe that a second chance would be profitable for the project. Thank you for your time and attention. Morce Library (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

This is a procedural close of your request, because it was a request for the block to be shortened, which Sergecross73 has done, but left the unblock request open. I am closing it to prevent other administrators from spending time checking the relevant history, only to find at the end of doing so that the matter has already been dealt with, as I have just done. 😥 JBW (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'm...still here, so you don't need to flag down someone else for an unblock. While I'm a bit worried about your vow to not act impulsively when you're already asking elsewhere for an unblock...my offer still stands. If you promise to not alter any direct quotes, and to adhere to WP:BRD, I'll shorten your block to a week. But if I, (or any admin likely) find you altering quotes or edit warring, your next block will likely be a lengthy one. Sergecross73 msg me 00:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Second chance"....this is your third block. It would be a fourth chance, which very few editors are given, new or not. Personally I think you've been given enough chances. The fact that you're still trying to argue with me while asking to be unblocked speaks volumes about your approach to editing. Ss112 03:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I do promise to not alter any direct quotes and to behave better, strictly using methods of seeking consensus allowed by Wikipedia instead of repeating my past mistakes--Morce Library (talk)

I've shortened your block to one week from today. (Blocking policy says each block gets progressively longer.) In the meantime, prepare yourself for much more discussions and question-asking. Ss112 please give this editor (one last) fair shot. If behavior does not improve, I'll take care of it. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the opportunity, i'm very thankful for it and i'll put my 100% to show you what i've learned from this experience. Thank you so much for your time --Morce Library (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yung Bleu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gunna. 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) 05:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Misquoting again: January 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Welcome to My Life (documentary). You are still misquoting sources! Stop paraphrasing or adding words to quotes.

Your quote:

• ..."one of America's most loved people to public enemy number one".

The cited source quote:

• "He went from being America's sweetheart to public enemy number one." Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also at Alone at Prom, where you typed out:

• "The music was so retro and nostalgic that a character for it had to be created and authenticated through film, picture, and music video. I tried to mix pure pop, R&B, alternative and 80’s rock music and I’m excited for everyone to hear what I’ve poured my passion into with the Alone At Prom album."

However, the cited source is not the same!

• The music was so retro and nostalgic that the character had to be created and authenticated through film, picture and music video. Ashton Rain is today’s last hope of getting a full catalog now and later of pure pop, R&B, alternative and 80’s rock music and I’m excited for everyone to hear what I’ve poured my passion into with the Alone At Prom album."

Why do you continue to misquote the sources? It's very easy to copy and paste the text, but you keep messing with the text. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

At Lady of Namek, you quoted the source but without telling the reader that you were doing so. This is a copyright violation! Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

And at Guilty (Sevyn Streeter song), you quoted words taken from two sources without attribution, which is also copyright violation. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm really sorry for the copyright violation, i didn't know, i'll absolutely check myself for that. I will also start to copy and paste direct quotes so i won't mess it up while writing it. Thank you so much--Morce Library (talk)

Stop vandalizing and adding fancruft.

Your additions and removals of content to portray Chris Brown in a more positive light is absolutely unacceptable. You contributions are either unsourced, source to a source that isn’t remotely related to your content, and also include dead links and unreliable sources. I’ve seen that you’ve been permanently banned before, and there’s wonder to that. So, unless you want to be banned again, I suggest that you stop vandalizing the Chris Brown pages. Aardwolf68 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You are blanking entire sections removing sourced content, replacing it with completely unsourced statements, i see that you've been doing that for a while, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and so on. Also adding unreliable sources here and there. This is vandalizing. Sometimes link of sources become dead links, check Wikipedia:Link rot. You're coming at me for "unreliable sources" without making examples, while the vast majority of your edits on here are additions of unsourced stuff. Plus, i suggest you to stop edit warring me and discuss my edits here, if you want to continue this discussion

Plus, on Chris Brown, for example, none of the dozens of sources that you are removing consists of dead links, or things that don’t relate to the content at hand. For example you removed: "Being described by media outlets and critics as one of the biggest talents of his time in urban music, Brown gained a cult following, and wide comparisons to Michael Jackson for his stage presence as a singer-dancer", because according to you it's "fancruft" and "BS", but the source put for it completely supports it, by saying: "Chris Brown has experienced several undeniable peaks throughout his career, as well as a few notable valleys. In spite of the darker days, Breezy has retained a loyal fanbase of devotees, damn near religious in their fervor for the multitalented artist. It's not entirely hard to see why. Throughout his near-two-decade-deep career, Chris Brown has been at the center of countless hits, singing his heart out, spitting bars with slept-on precision, and tearing up the stage with enough prowess to draw comparisons to the late Michael Jackson. Anyone who has ever seen Chris Brown live would probably attest to his showmanship, and not even his haters can deny that he is indeed objectively talented"

I've seen your modus operandi of questioning sources then right afterwards make massive additions of unsourced stuff. so please, stop this mess.--Morce Library (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, man, you can act like you understand what you’re talking about all you want, but your previous warnings indicate otherwise. You seemed totally clueless as to what you were doing, and now all of a sudden you know the ins and outs of Wikipedia? Dude, I’m not adding anything, all I’m doing is copy pasting what Wikipedia originally said before you came in and purposefully misrepresented the albums’ reception. Your Heartbreak on a Full Moon edits, in fact, show that you removed the 51/100 from AOTY because it was too negative. You then proceeded to change the scores to make them look more positive. Your complex sources goes to a YouTube video from Joe Budden that’s not a source. Your driftwood source goes to a goddamn “not found”. That’s also not a source. your Rolling Stone and Vice links link to their websites and not a review of the album. Why? Because the review doesn’t exist. The boom box did not list a star review, nor is it a reliable source. Meanwhile, you removed the negative aspects of the HipHopDX review without good reason, another one of your quote altering mishaps. You ALSO removed a negative review from Slant Magazine in order to make the reception look more positive. Is that good enough for you? Because you’re making yourself look like a fool. Good day. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and, please, list two completely irrelevant topics by listing my doubts of an unsourced credit on a Laroi album, and then list me not sourcing my Laroi quote despite it being in THE SOURCE of what’s listed on the article. There’s no modus operandi, it’s just me questioning sources when there are none to begin with. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I did remove all of that stuff that you put because it's COMPLETELY unsourced, not because it looked bad to my interests, and again, please stop edit warring--Morce Library (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It was sourced until a vandal, whether or not that was you on a sock account as Mr Cap Driver is to be determined, decided to add all of the unsourced additions to the page. I, as I have admitted, do NOT know how to source correctly, and did not source them accordingly despite the sources being readily available in previous editions of the page. Just because you understand how to source on a basic level does not mean your edits are more constructive than mine, or that they have an merit to them. You are sourcing incorrectly and purposefully being deceptive with your practices. Not to mention your goal of making every Chris Brown article known to man more positive of his public image and reception. Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, are you going to attempt to take down my evidence against your sources, or are you going to ignore it because you know you’re in the wrong? Aardwolf68 (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What evidence are you talking about? I invite you to please, slow down your tone, and tell me when did you add sourced things on those pages. Everything you did is unsourced, you could've come to me and told me what edit was supposed to be fixed, instead of blanking entire sections, substituting the sourced content with unsourced stuff--Morce Library (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

It is completely unacceptable that, after a block about altering direct quotes, that someone found three instances of you inaccurately portraying direct quotes. I cannot believe you would be so careless right after being given a final warning and last chance. You are clearly not ready to be writing Wikipedia. You are indefinitely blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 17:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lady of Namek.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lady of Namek.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ruletheworldariana.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ruletheworldariana.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bujudays.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bujudays.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GuiltySeven.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GuiltySeven.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Makemydays.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Makemydays.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)