User talk:PHShanghai

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Thank you for fixing Nicki's lead it's perfect. Can you please work on Pink Friday because on the "Breakthrough with Pink Friday" it's written that the album was released on Nov 19 whereas the real release date is Nov 22. Plus please add nicki's streaming achievements because like Ariana and various artists.

Job Well Done!!! 197.184.183.60 (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ola mate, about the recent changes you've made to Nicki Minaj for the most followed rapper being Notable but definitely not lead sentence worthy, I moved it to the third paragraph. I think you are in the wrong because there is a sentence about "animated flow…" how is that more important than being the most followed rapper in the world (amongst Drake, Eminem and Lil Wayne just to mention a few). The very same is in the opening statement of Kylie Jenner. I'll revert your changes as I'm asking you to reconsider. Thank you. Neo the Twin (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo the Twin: Instagram followers are superficial and definitely not lead-sentence worthy. Her style, her artistry, her music- that is MUCH more important than Instagram followers. We don't have "best selling artists of all time" in the lead sentence for the same reason. And Kylie is a C class article, something that's much more comparable is American singer Katy Perry, who is noted to be the most followed woman on Twitter in her third paragraph, not fourth. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RogueShanghai, thank you mate, you the best. Neo the Twin (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you shanghai.^{talk to me} 20:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Nicki Minaj, you may be blocked from editing. You know it's not okay to remove cited information from an article and replace them with what you may think it is true. If content is cited reliable source(s) please add to it rather than removing it altogether with its source. Neo the Twin (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wat? shanghai.^{talk to me} 08:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RogueShanghai, read the last paragraph. Neo the Twin (talk) 10:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wat? What are you even talkin bout... shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RogueShanghai, well it's okay, keep doing that and yourself indefinitely blocked. Don't say I did not warn you. Thanks! Neo the Twin (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Neo the Twin: You've randomly barged into my talk page saying I did something wrong but failed to say what it is, because I was just editing Nicki Minaj like normal. And then you are here making threats which violates WP:INTIMIDATE. This is article content and you're turning it into grounds for personal attacks. Very confusing and unprofessional. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the discussion on ANI, and wanted to mention that you can configure your preferences (on User profile tab) to indicate your preferred pronouns. The option you select will be visible to other editors with nav pop-ups enabled when they hover over your signature. Cheers! Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Actually, the most irritating part is that I've had my preferred pronouns set as they/them on my account for months now, (here's the proof) and I still don't know why he just can't use the right terms for me. It's either ignorance or malicious intent, and because this person has already thrown so many personal attacks at me before, I have a feeling it's leaning towards the latter.... shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How strange, that preference doesn't show up in the pop-up. I don't understand why WMF wouldn't show they/them in the pop-up the same way it shows he/him and she/her. My apologies, I thought the pref configuration would help. Schazjmd (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: It's okay, you only tried to help. I just hate how people are acting like me being misgendered is just no big deal, because an editor with a history of rude personal attacks against me conveniently forgot to read my pronouns... sigh. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I catch you edit warring, especially with RonHerry, then you're going to receive a short block.
• If I see any more WP:NPA or WP:AGF violations, especially with RonHerry, you're going to receive a short block. I've told you repeatedly that you need to comment on disputes, not editors. Stop all the petty comments about being bitter or whatever.

You're both exhausting the community with all the bickering and reverting. And yes, Ron will get the same warning, and yes, I'll block you both if you both don't stop. It needs to stop now. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you shanghai.^{talk to me} 03:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Hi. I would like to raise an issue now that this person has crossed the line. As you can see here, me and Maxwell were discussing out an edit conflict. Shanghai popped up suddenly and asked me to open an Rfc, which I did, but I opted not to reply Shanghai as I did not wish to interact with them as per the warning you have given here. But then, Shanghai once again mentioned me and claimed "acting like a huge dick doesn't make yours any bigger." I once again ignored this uncivil response but it is an indecent remark that is completely unacceptable and violates WP:NPA. They are also invading my privacy by outing my off-wiki name and simply casting aspersions in the linked diff. I see that you warned them again for the second time in December 2022, but they have continued this behavior somehow. ℛonherry☘ 17:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hi! I'm Bawin! My pronouns are he/him"

Your old username is BawinV. There is no invasion of privacy as I have not used any information that isn't already on Wikipedia. I have also published no links or any identifiable information regarding your off wiki posts where you admitted to editing BTS negatively.

Need I also remind that the exact same edit warring warning was given to you and yet you edit warred several times with Maxwell on Sabrina Carpenter. And did you not try to drag Maxwell personally, breaking WP:NPA? You were rude and being "shady" yet no one says the quiet part out loud PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:NPA, "It is [...] less acceptable if it requires much research to find (particularly information later removed by the user in question)." I replaced my username and removed any personal information. You chose to use my old username to address me; please explain how it is constructive to Sabrina Carpenter? And yes, me and Maxwell reverted each other twice and hence Maxwell initiated a talk topic and we were discussing it out in a civil manner until you decided to insert yourself in an one-on-one conversation, despite previous warnings given to you regarding interacting with me as you cannot assume good faith with me, and decided to use my off-wiki name and call me a "dick". I did not call Maxwell a dick. Maxwell did not call me a dick. But you did call me a dick. The distinctions are clear. ℛonherry☘ 06:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Trixie Mattel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair. 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) 06:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oops rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 10:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RogueShanghai! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Music source, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please bear in mind that you've expressed an opinion that "highs and lows" are important this season, though I'd argue that because the Queens themselves make the decision on how to award the stars and make no commentary on who was "High" its even less important than a normal drag race season. Secondly, WP:PRIMARY always applied - things should always be reliably sourced from third party sources. Thirdly read WP:CONSENSUS. You can't ramraid through a change based on purely your own opinion when there was been a consensus applied to all Drag Race articles based on procedure and policy. Just because the show is slightly different (in terms of format) doesn't mean it automatically earns an exemption from the existing consensus. Absence of discussion is not support for your views. The default state is the existing consensus. One consensus is only changed to another when there is evidence there is support for it. Reverting a change (which I did) shows that your edits were contested as going against the current standards. It is therefore incumbent upon you to get a new consensus. Until then, the article will remain in the default/supported state.

I hope that this is clear. If not, you need to begin an RFC, ask uninvolved editors to review your comments against the original consensus or perhaps ask the admin who imposed the original consensus. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1: If you read my original post proposing to readd highs, you can clearly see that I only supported adding highs and not lows. The show already says that these specific queens performed really highly that week. By your logic, is a third party source necessary to say the queens won too? Plus, you have made no comment about you reverting the accessibility and color changes I made to the template, yet you see it as righteous anyways. Your unwillingness to improve on the content and instead blindly reverting it is obvious WP:STONEWALLING. I'm out of here, I can't deal with an editor who actually wants to remove content rather than add to it. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the heck you're on about. If your edits were purely about adding information that would be fine. The consensus was about not including highs and lows. Nothing in your edits suggesting there was anything to add or anything significantly improved to accessibility and colour. Additionally, the wins are not controversial - there's no debate over who wins each episode. Per WP:V, things that are not controversial don't need sourcing. However there is a level of subjectivity and WP:FANCRUFTy about highs and lows which is why there were disallowed in the first place; they resulted in edit wars and couldn't be verified. There's no sense of righteousness in promoting an existing consensus and applying wikipedia guidelines. You have not explained why your edits are an improvement, simply an opinion that is not supported by policy and does not explain (based on readability, accessibility or policy) why the existing consensus should not apply. There is nothing self-righteous about this. If anything it demonstrates a complete lack of good faith and proceeds to trash my reputation unfairly just because I called you out for improperly assuming that no opposition is the same as not opposed. There's a difference between asking you to explain your edits and source them with guidance and discussion as they seek to change consensus versus outright WP:STONEWALLING someone. Its a shame that you're "leaving" because someone disagreed with you. However, if you're not mature enough to discuss your disagreements or follow the community consensus or community approach to resolving differences and can't adhere to wikipedia then maybe wikipedia isn't for you. I don't appreciate your comments about "removing content, rather than adding to it" or being referred to as needing to be "dealt with". It reeks of incivility. I'm not going to add any more here as its clear we have different perspectives and aside from calling out a personal attack from you, I don't care for an argument. Happy to continue discussing improvements to the article at its relevant talk page. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lil-unique1:

"There is a level of subjectivity and fancruft with HIGHS in AS7"

"Highs couldn't be verified"

"Things that are not controversial don't need sourcing"

If you bothered to read it, I wrote an entire section literally disproving all of that and proving it is easily verifiable which went uncontested for an entire month despite me also crossposting it to the Drag Race Wikiproject. When I made that edit, I specifically asked for people to use the talk page first before reverting.

Heck, you even reverted to my table with the highs but then waited TWO entire weeks to go "Oh this is actually consensus so you can't do it this way!!" You never once actually asked me personally to explain my edits, and even if you did, I already have a detailed verifiable explanation on the talk rpage which has been consistent for eight episodes straight now. I'm not "unfairly" trashing your reputation, your "my way or no way" edit warring is doing all the talking about your "reputation" for you.

But fine. Go ahead. Bickering over a reality TV show's table being a certain way is not worth my time and I don't understand why it is worth yours. If you have passive aggressive tone in your statements such as "ramraid through a change based on purely your own opinion" (and not to repeat myself again, but I have literally given evidence which is clearly not an unverifiable opinion), I don't think you're actually open to creating a non-toxic collaborative environment. Good day.

and saying "I'm out of here, I can't deal with an editor who actually wants to remove content rather than add to it." isn't passive aggressive? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. WP:AAGF: Ironically, the very act of citing AGF can suggest an assumption of bad faith, since one is assuming that the other is not also assuming good faith. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 17:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its clear you're assuming bad faith as you assumed I don't want to collaborate or that I was being self-righteous. And you've accused me of bickering. A well detailed explanation that does not address the concerns which led to the original consensus demonstrates exactly why the consensus exists in the first place. There was a pile on of editors and over-zealous fans changing things to ensure that other series of drag race had highs and lows each episode even though in many episodes it was never 100% clear. The absence of high quality or reliable sources and edit warring is what led to the consensus to not include them at all. Your argument was that "highs and lows" matter even more this season which is highly subjective. The only thing which is 100% certain is that there has been two top competitors each episode whom are awarded stars. Everything else matters not and is fancruft-y because fans have given importance to Highs and Lows. These have never been a formal part of the show, though Ru has on many occasions awarded "tops and bottoms", usually the top two or three and bottom two or three. Given in this season that the winner picks who to block there's no relevance of tops and bottoms. Queens play their own rules for who they choose. In the most recent episode Jada was blocked despite not being in "the bottom". It really isn't relevant. If you're actually genuinely interested in the point of view that such information was useful start a WP:RFC which would be a constructive way to get uninvolved editors to comment independently. Otherwise its pretty much you and I expressing different opinions, and thus the existing consensus stands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:13, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Boyz (Jesy Nelson song). Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not perceived offensive. Your text just had no source attached to it. I literally created the article. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 18:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	You have value as an individual. Please never forget that and always stay positive about your contributions to the project. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Hi. Thank you so much for this barnstar. After some particularly traumatic things happening in my personal IRL life, it's hard to find the motivation to edit Wikipedia anymore. What's the point? I just check in occasionally since I'm already logged in. Anyways. Thanks. All love. rogueshanghai^{chat (they/them)} 12:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, do the things you enjoy and makes you feel less terrible. If one of those things is editing, then continue to edit! If not, there's nothing wrong with that.

Regardless, I hope you feel better about what's going on IRL for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a cool person. We're the same age and we're both fans of Nic, Katy, and Gaga. Also, your contributions are high quality. Have a nice day:) Castlepalace 11:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much. If you'd ever like to hit me up and talk outside of Wikipedia, we can exchange Discords or something :) ^w^ PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lol forgot the ping @Castlepalace: PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PHShanghai Hey sure, give me your Discord Castlepalace 15:04, 26 August 2022 (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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I giving the two of you the same warning terms, for the record:

1. If you make any more unconstructive comments towards other editors, your account will be blocked.
2. If you do any more reverting on the current disputes, or WP:BRD violations on new disputes, you're going to be blocked or WP:PBLOCKed.

All you need to do is keep to concise, constructive debate at the various disputes at hand. Comment on content, not editors, and stay on topic. If you're at a stand-still, either wait for other editors to weigh in, or neutrally notify places like WP:WIKIPROJECTs for extra input. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Unnecessary drama and grudges get in the way of content. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I got pinged on that discussion. I just wanted to give you a heads up that you've entered into the infobox debate. Some of the editors there should just be ignored. They are veteran editors who should know better, but they've been adamantly opposed to infoboxes for 10+ years. Anytime there's a new voice in the debate they attempt to discredit, make accusations, and try to discourage further commentary. They're committed to wasting time on a losing battle by stonewalling or employing whatever parliamentary tactics necessary to delay the inevitable. The whole thing is rather weird, but if you're helping with RfCs this little bit of information should help. I hope this helps. Happy editing! Nemov (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nemov: Thank you! When I scrolled through the discussion and I saw the long list of angry replies and debates, I knew the topic was heated, but even me just dropping a "Support" vote led to two grown editors making a conspiracy theory about me being canvassed, when they didn't even take two seconds to check my talk page edits to see I've also been replying on other RfCs. Then they chastised me for making sarcastic remarks and acting like they were nice to me the entire time. I call BS sister!

I just wanna know like, why are they spending their last day of 2022 stressing out about infoboxes on an article that barely anyone visits (compared to other music articles). Take a long hard look at the discussion from top to bottom and you'll see the entire thing looks stupid as hell. It's not productive or constructive, it's a mass inducing headache for anyone involved. Wikipedia girl, it can really get.... anyways PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited for years and the people getting worked up about it is the weirdest thing I've seen. Happy New Year! Nemov (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PHShanghai! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Girl From Nowhere Season 2 Netflix Poster.jpg, 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: The file was never listed as CC commons. From what I can remember, I listed it as a nonfree poster, and some redpage account changed it. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. 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. TheHotwiki (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

thanks for the image change on the Ariana Grande page. Is there a possibility for you, to look up her Allure Interview from 2021 on YouTube. Is there a some way for you, to take a shot from it too. This would be an even better image. If not, thanks, that you even bothered.

Also, thanks for your support on the Lead changes topic, but that user is really a hopeless case.

Best regards Mirrored7 (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I actually quite like the Allure Interview better; unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be under a Creative Commons License. VOGUE Taiwan is also a way easier source to get pictures of famous celebrities. I think the 2023 one might be the best choice considering all the other options are from 2015 and 2016.

About that other user; the thing I find interesting is there has been off-wiki evidence of this user admitting to editing negatively on other pop music articles like BTS (Disclaimer: I am not a BTS fan). Unfortunately, Wikipedia protocol prohibits off-wiki evidence (I mean, for good reason). There isn't really much that can be done over a WP:OWN editor; I've encountered many of them in my time editing pop music related articles. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

i just wanted to give you a heads up, that I'm going to replace your recent image of Ariana Grande, with a much older one of hers. You can read the reason why, on the talk page. I want you to know, that i'm still thankful for your contribution. It still would be great, if you can find some other alternatives to upload. Defintely something from the timeline 2020-2023. Grande hasn't been active much in those years, so it isn't going to be easy at all. She looks very different now too, because of her role in Wicked. Either way, it's not going to be easy, to replace the Grammy image that she had for years. This one was top notch.

Best regards Mirrored7 (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it's me again. Since I have no idea how Wikimedia works, I wanted to ask what options there are and what is possible. It's been a month since the main image of the Ariana Grande article was deleted. Do you even know why it was deleted? I thought for a long time about a solution, and about what is actually allowed. Do the images have to come from the users themselves? What is a Creative Commons License? Since the earlier image was perfect for what it was, I thought about bringing it back. It is stored in the Wayback Machine. Is there a way to take a screenshot and cut it out? I would like to have a solution as soon as possible, since the current image is ancient and there are not many options for something new. Best regards Mirrored7 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please stop hounding me and making unacceptable personal attacks such as "acting like a huge dick doesn't make yours any bigger." Whatever you claimed in that reply (the linked diff) holds no relevance to the actual talk topic but is only your way of threatening me in an attempt to weaken the concern I properly raised in a talk page in a civil manner. This is your final and only warning. Anymore personal attacks and hounding towards me, and I'm reporting you on the Admins' Noticeboard. Bye. ℛonherry☘ 16:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PHShanghai, what is your explanation for that comment? I've already given you final warnings about personal attacks and not assuming good faith. How could you possibly not see this as a blatant violation of that? Sergecross73 msg me 17:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has Ronherry not blatantly editwarred on Sabrina Carpenter 5 times, then proceeded to act extremely rude to other editors on the talk page of that article? I highly doubt anyone would read Ronherrys replies on that article without clearly seeing some passive aggressiveness. I'm sick of everyone tolerating passive-aggressive "shady" comments.

Not to mention Ronherry is also hounding me on Beyonce. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the time since since the warnings given to you, I have never interacted with you. It was you who interacted with me first (here) and started hurling a bunch of diff-less allegations at me. "I highly doubt anyone" — please do not speak for everybody. "Passive aggressive" — what categorizes as passive aggressive is highly subjective. I, as per my knowledge, have never made any passive-aggressive or "shady" comments. I'm a straightforward speaker. And you still have not explained how does all this justify saying "acting like a huge dick doesn't make yours any bigger" about me, a fellow editor. ℛonherry☘ 07:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't civil. You tried to game the system and edit warred several times on Sabrina Carpenter going against the stable version of the article, which is fine, but you then tried to put the ONUS on Maxwell to start an RfC when its actually your job with tendentious content. Your edit warring and anticollaborative behavior is showing through.

Not to mention, you're hounding my completely unrelated edits on List of highest-grossing concert tours by women and Beyoncé. Is it really a coincidence that both of these edits that I made you reverted a day later? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But these claims are not what you typed out in your argument in the talk topic. Instead, you chose to threaten me, post my personal information without my permission and topped it all off with the catchphrase "acting like a huge dick doesn't make yours any bigger." Outing my off-wiki name and talking about my penis is not constructive to the article of Sabrina Carpenter in any way. ℛonherry☘ 06:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your old Wikipedia username is not an "off-wiki" username, nor is it personal information. You clearly have a history and WP:UNC says nothing about referring to your past editing under the name "BawinV." Additionally, I did mention your edit warring. That was very much clear PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the consensus on revealing private information does clarify that revealing "information later removed by the user in question" does constitute as outing. ℛonherry☘ 07:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I really do not appreciate you continuing to use my personal name despite me having made it clear that I do not want it to be used. This is unacceptable. ℛonherry☘ 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I am not going to respond to you further, having clearly stated all your WP:OUTING and WP:NPA violations repeatedly. Please fix your behaviour and never interact with me. Bye. ℛonherry☘ 07:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of passive aggressive comments made by Ronherry on Sabrina Carpenter:

• "you should study WP:NPOV and keep your personal fan-motivated opinions aside while editing Wikipedia."
• "I'm not the Christina Aguilera fan here that has made sure to decorate the article with her image."
• "Oh, that's it. Very visibly, you're constantly disrupting the article..."
• "None of your lawyering and misuse of policies is going to change the fact that you're constantly removing prose"'
• "I'm not going to respond to all of your grandstanding and attempts at steering away"

PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are these "passive aggressive" and how do these justify saying "acting like a huge dick doesn't make yours any bigger"? ℛonherry☘ 07:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you

Any more arguing, and blocks will be issues/extended. You've both been warned about the endless back and forth. The time to disengage is absolutely this instant.

PHShanghai

When blocked, your talk page is strictly for asking for an unblock. Not continuing the arguments that got you blocked in the first place. Any more comments to Ron and your talk page access is revoked. Calling Ron any names he does not want to be called will be considered another WP:NPA/WP:CIV violation.

Ron

This user is blocked for their conduct. There is no reason to engage further right now. If PHShanghai antagonizes you further, they will be blocked. But you too have been warned about these fruitless, spiraling arguments. You're going to be blocked if you don't disengage. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I've actually given you 2 separate final warnings for personal attacks, assuming bad faith, and generally making unconstructive talk page comments. The above section is a ridiculous violation of that. Your account is blocked for 1 week, and the next one is gong to be much longer if it happens again. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~ Merry Christmas! ~ ~ ~

Hello PHShanghai: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Madonna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Open Your Heart. 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) 17:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Kylie Minogue. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 13:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to post links of me displaying WP:Own. You were blocked before for personal attacks, and you use that WP:Own card on me everytime you are reached out by me in talk pages [1][2][3], rather than discussing things in a civil way. This would not look good on you, when you are reported for continous personal attacks. Hotwiki (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because your reverts (check your reasons) all say "No need". "No need" is not a verifiable fact nor policy based reason to mass revert edits from other users. Not just me, but others have noted your OWN behavior of the page before.

This is the definition of WP:OWN behavior. You constantly make passive-aggressive side comments on talk pages. This has been called out before by other editors and it means editors don't want to work with you collaboratively. Going on other editors talk pages and spamming vague templates at them adds to that.

Why are you then surprised that civil collaboration doesn't happen when you keep making things uncivil? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed things to you directly in the talk page of Kylie Minogue several times. They were many times you posted incorrect information - most recently your first edit in that article after few months. Then you threw little digs at me, rather than discussing in a civil way. Just reading your own talk page, I'm not the only editor you have attacked personally, to the point you were blocked for personal attacks. This isn't a good look when you are reported again, for the same reason, you were blocked for last November of 2023. Hotwiki (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Kylie Minogue. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Hotwiki (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I've collected the links in which you used "Wp:own" card as an insult to me. Hotwiki (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Hotwiki (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]