User talk:Joseph Prasad/Archive 3

Lady Gaga

Did you check every article on songs and albums that she has specifically written songs for? They are her own, after all. I strongly recommend you go to Category:Songs written by Lady Gaga and read everything from there. Also, read all the album notes on each and every album. I rest my case. Thebuck093 (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thebuck093: Yes, but she is not a frequent user of an instrument, and for example, Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake do the same thing. Not Singer-songwriters. Drake Bell and Taylor Swift as well, but they were concensused as singer-songwriters. Start a discussion on the talk page then go from there. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

But what about others such as Lorde and Michael Bublé? You don't have to play an instrument other than sing to be a songwriter, as well. The human voice is a musical instrument. Check each and every article on all singers and singer-songwriters and the human voice is listed as an instrument. That is why they are called singer-songwriters. They sing AND write their own music whether they are a cappella, play instruments, or have others accompany their voices with other musical instruments. Have you ever thought of that? Thebuck093 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Thebuck093: Yes, I understand that, read the singer-songwriter article, then you'll understand. The typical way of going about this is getting consensus, and providing reliable sources, like with articles I mentioned above. -- 05:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just read the article, and I see where you are coming from. But how can we distinguish the Wikipedia articles of those who at least PARTIALLY write and sing their own songs from those who are simply singers? For example, Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong did NOT write any of their own songs at all, while Taylor Swift, Sam Smith, Tom Petty, and numerous others DO write their own, but are not sole contributors to the songs? How should we define these singers? Thebuck093 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well,@Thebuck093:, using one of my previous examples, Drake Bell, wrote ALL of his songs on his albums Telegraph and It's Only Time, but they were all written with co-writers, members of his band. The point is, in that article, for people to agree with him being a singer-songwriter, I had to provide reliable sources saying so, and show that he performs in the acoustic "singer-songwriter" fashion as well. Taylor Swift, on the other hand, wrote a couple of her albums without co-writers, songs about relationships, and performs in the acoustic fashion. So, at least, find two or three reliable sources calling her a singer-songwriter. It won't be just me and SNUGGUMS reverting you - a LOT of editors will revert you on this. So please do what I said. At least provide a couple reliable sources, and I will probably agree with you. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Your recent editing history at Justin Bieber shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gloss 18:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Emma Watson

Hey. Can you please give me permission to edit Emma Watson's page? I didn't know how else to contact you. Thanks. - harrydone

I'm not even sure how to actually give permission, but you can make an edit request to the talk page then editors can make them for you. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) non-admins cannot "give permission" for any user rights. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Siouxsie and the Banshees discography

"Billboard.com" is not complete: for their 1995's The Rapture album, "Allmusic" mentions that it peaked at number 127 in the Billboard 200. Same thing concerning their 1991's single "Kiss them for me", "Billboard.com" omitted that it reached number 23 in The Billboard Hot 100 whereas "Allmusic" mentions it. Carliertwo (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of "new beginnings"?

And are you aware of the magnitude of the changes that occurred in both Taylor Swift's life and career preceding 1989? I spend numerous hours researching before I make significant edits. Thanks. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 04:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Soulparadox: Really, what has changed in her career? Not much. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Telegraph

I have added quite a few sources. The album's current refcount stands at 10. I feel like with the help of them, you can easily expand Telegraph (album)#Critical reception. :) MaRAno ^FAN 14:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Ok, thanks! I'll get to it when I get home from school, or maybe at lunch. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: I would really appreciate your input at this page. Thank you :) MaRAno ^FAN 13:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Joseph Prasad. You have new messages at Airplaneman's talk page.
Message added 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airplaneman ✈ 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

1989

You really need to go through WP:RS and WP:SPS to understand why Headlineplanet.com cannot be used as reference and neither can Taylor Swift's twitter account. Stop this now. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Headlineplanet from both US and WW. You really need to stop edit warring else WP:EW noticeboard is where you will end up. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@IndianBio: You would report me, and yet you have reverted more times than I have. That'd be smart. Go right ahead, I'd love to see the result. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are you doing this ?

You know you are wrong? Look up the facts. Please

@Helpmeloosemymind: I keep telling you to provide a source. You just keep reverting over and over. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see the message. New to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpmeloosemymind (talk • contribs) 04:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's ok. But I told you in the edit summaries. Didn't see it I guess. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor

I see you're having issues with this article again. Could you please discuss these on the talk page? I don't want to protect the page again. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tara Strong

Hi,

Not contesting your revert of my edit on Tara Strong, just wondering why it is classified as unneeded? Isn't more information good?

Genuinely curious since I have seen other person pages with signatures.

--FireDart (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, @FireDart:, I have seen it removed on articles like Ariana Grande and Lindsey Stirling, and don't see it on a GA like Taylor Swift or Justin Timberlake. The infobox is for notable information. A signature really is not, unless their signature in notable to their career, and as far as I can tell, there is no way to prove that is actually her signature. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph Prasad: Thanks for the clarifications.

--FireDart (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Who Dated Who Website

http://dating.famousfix.com/tpx_2915/drake-bell/dating-history

There is a reason why the entire contents of WhosDatedWho.com is not on Wikipedia. Please spend a few days, weeks or years of your life reading and editing the WhosDatedWho.com website. When you realize that who someone dated almost a decade ago is about as important as what they where eating for breakfast almost a decade ago, then please start thinking about all the things you could have spent your days, weeks or years doing instead.

You are using the wrong site for the wrong purpose, that is why you are causing so many problems.

62.60.23.66 (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

I misread the diffs, you can see from my edit summary I thought I was removing the excessive occupations, not adding them. Thanks for correcting my error.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Again

Explain why, out of all the people that Drake Bell and Stevie Ryan have dated in their lives that you feel that it is so important that this one single relationship is posted over and over again? Is it because you though that you had discovered some secret that you personally where going to bring to the world's attention? Too bad. It is not a secret and never was. It has been public knowledge for almost a decade (since you were 5). Stop posting on subjects that you patently have no knowledge of. Your school teachers are paid to correct you, wikipedia contributors are not. Stop wasting everyone's time.

If you have crush on Drake Bell (you are the only one who cares about his page) then ask him for a date yourself. He is broke now, so he will probably go as long as you are buying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.23.66 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm loving the personal attack from an IP. It's the only relationship of Drake Bell I could actually find a reliable source on. I cannot find one on Stevie Ryan either. And if anything, I've contributed more than you have. First of all, I'm not homosexual, second of all, I would not dated one that has no money whatsoever. And he was broke back in 2014, he made that money back up. You are starting to look like a Justin Bieber fan. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This is not People Magazine. Find sources that Bell had a measured impact on Ryan's life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Using again Taylor Swift's page as an example, it has reached GA status and has had EVERY single relationship on there, and as far as I can see, it's the only relationship I can find on both Bell and Ryan. Notable ones, anyway.

However Swift uses her relationships for material for her songs. Therefore they have a sourced impact on her life. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but not Conor Kennedy, or Taylor Lautner. None of those were shown, as far as I can tell. And she actually said herself, most of it was just speculation that those songs were about them, she never actually said it directly. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've gotten rid of one to test the waters and opened a discussion: Talk:Taylor_Swift#Relationships_2, --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, cause typically, I use other articles as examples, one's that are high-class. Since those were there, I thought it would not have been a problem. And by the way, I have removed it from Bell's article as well. Honestly, that personal attack by the IP was NOT going to help me stop reverting his reverts. Just cause I'm single-handedly for the most part editing a certain article doesn't mean I have some sexual attraction to the subject of that article. I'm mainly working on it because no one else does. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at GAs and FAs is a good idea and I do it to but they tend to acquire cruft over time, especially when covering pop culture icons. Thanks for dealing with Bell's article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome and, apparently, I'm "the only one who cares", for his articles, so... -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist so you'll have a little help... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have tried to find Musical Style and themes and such, so far I have found his music is described as "Beatlesque", but I need way more that that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Rockability revivalist? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot that with the addition of his latest album, Ready, Steady, Go!. But I still don't have enough info compared to Justin Timberlake, Meghan Trainor, and others. You don't need to look right now, whenever you have the time. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

1989

do you not read diffs before reverting…—♥ Kelvinsong talk 02:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I’m sorry if you’re under stress but I feel like you are fighting changes on the 1989 page just because, & ur following the rulebook without any regard to what they were written for. Ask any tumblr-going Swiftie and they will tell you that everything I added is true. The rules are there to prevent false information from persisting; I’ve been here a while ik how it works. And the secret messages are straight from the album itself, and if you really insist I will go through my lyric book and pick out all the lowercase letters to prove to you that’s the 1989 messages. The quotation about IWYW is straight from Taylor’s second voice memo. And if you want me to prove that HYGTG has an acoustic guitar, well get out ur cd and listen to the song. I’m just trying to fill out that article bc I saw the incomplete tag and as a swiftie I know a great deal about the album so I figured I could improve the article. And if anyone had any questions about the material (like you, tho you didn’t have to go and slam revert) I could easily find sources, like I just did. The only stuff that’s harder is general statements like the popularity of Wonderland & NR, but I guarantee you ask almost any fan & they’ll tell you the same thing.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 03:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I get that it is public knowledge between fans, I know "How You Get The Girl" has an acoustic guitar, and I know most of the information you putting there. But the material needs to be sourced, mainly the quote that was there. Just because something is "knowledge among Swifties", but someone who isn't a huge fan would have absolutely no clue what you're talking about, and if that info is verifiable. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Look i get where ur coming from, but the purpose of the rule is to prevent false information from getting into articles, and if you delete something that you knew was true, well that just doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me. Like u could’ve just gone and cited the album itself like I did, which personally I felt was redundant. Why do you think there is no bot that goes around and deletes every sentence that doesn’t have a after it?. && btw normally tumblr posts & tweets are not acceptable for factual information, but tumblr is the only place you can guage stuff like fandom attitude, & the best place to source actual tweets from Taylor from is Taylor’s own twitter account—♥ Kelvinsong talk 03:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

are you kidding me. I have never bothered to read the declaration of independence, therefore I will AFD United States.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 03:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, something like a quote has to be cited, that was not even in the source. Provide a source of that quote. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The. album. is. the. source. It’s. in. the. lyric. book. Go. get. ur. cd. instead. of. arguing. here. people like you make me want to stop editing here…—♥ Kelvinsong talk 03:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not a source. That would be interpretation, unless it literally says "Secret Messages Here". That's like saying because I think I know the meaning to, let's take the song "Makes Me Happy", I can just stick it there. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Kelvinsong, please see the WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research policies. Users can't simply add content because they "know it's true" without any citations to reliable sources. Continuously adding unsourced/poorly sourced content is disruptive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Idek how to respond to you guys. It’s not an interpretation. Any swiftie with a notebook a pencil and half an hour to kill can find the secret messages, and every single one will get the same message (excepting for typos obvs). Taylor’s done it before, this is the first time they form a coherent story tho. && SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) it’s not original research, they’re established fact & when I went to add them I was surprised they weren’t already there. Even mtv found them—♥ Kelvinsong talk 04:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why didn't you use that source before? If you don't, then that is original research, because anyone who isn't a fanboy of Taylor Swift wouldn't see it or make sense of it. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

bc why cite a quote of a quote when you can go straight to the source. MTV is less reliable than Taylor's actual published album in stores. (actually there are typos in the booklet, see I know Places lyrics, but since we are talking about what is actually printed in the booklet it is still the final authority)♥ Kelvinsong talk 04:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

There's no proof it is actually there for someone who does not have access to the booklet. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Access to sources is not a basis for excluding them. See WP:PAYWALL. We cite books despite people not having them on hand. We cite science papers despite people not being able to pay to read them. We cite magazines despite not everyone having a subscription. So why do we exclude an album because not everyone bought it? && besides there are over six million copies of 1989 in circulation; I have no doubt that is bigger than the readership of Science and Nature combined.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 04:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but they are usually used when another source is not available, and it is better than someone having to actually do the work to find them. MTV is better than the Digital Booklet because it does not say "Secret Messages Here", whereas MTV says there is secret messages. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point. But the booklet itself is sufficient, & not grounds for removing the material. The mtv article or any other transcriptions are a courtesy to add.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 05:06, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

You may add the "Secret Messages" now, but at least provide the MTV source. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done—♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong and Joseph Prasad: Just happened upon this discussion randomly, but the voice memos from the deluxe version of the album can probably be cited with something along the lines of "Swift, Taylor. (track name). 1989 (2014). Big Machine Records" –Chase (talk / contribs) 06:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Isabelle Fuhrman

Thanks for removing something that I had added on her page. Maybe you can look up the article that stated she was going to be starring in that movie. Read an article before you delete someone's information. You know what, I'll do you one better (since you apparently couldn't look it up yourself).

Here's the link. http://variety.com/2015/film/news/isabelle-fuhrman-max-martini-hellbent-casting-1201436527/

Oh, and by the way, next time, check her Twitter account. She said on on Twitter herself, that she's starring in Hellbent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrothief42 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Glen Campbell

Other articles like Reba McEntire, George Jones, Jo Dee Messina, Tanya Tucker, Willie Nelson, Waylon Jennings, Loretta Lynn, etc. use this. Also, note that what you said here, you said "other main careers", but Campbell has had a variety show called The Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour on CBS television and has been in other filmography. Just because Taylor Swift doesn't have doesn't mean others do. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 06:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, There is no reason, as there is no other career section, all those articles aren't Good Articles, except for Reba McEntire, which is also known for acting. Also, he is not known for acting, why do you think he has infobox musical artist instead of person? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, but it doesn't make since to have all of the sections in the GC article to be level 2 sections headers. The sections for his career should be listed under a main level 2 section heading and the following as section 3 or lower. Let's be consistent with most other musician articles. Corkythehornetfan | Chat? 06:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Pink (singer)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The stylized version of her name is covered in the lead, but per WP:STAGENAME, the most commonly used name should be the name of the page (which it is), and that name should match the name in the infobox. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Thank you for correcting me, Onel5969.

Death Battle

Hello, I'm 85.210.181.124. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Death Battle without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! 85.210.181.124 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

List of 2015 albums

Sure a reason!!!!! I was just adding TWO new albums out in July! But u destroyed my work! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickykidd (talk • contribs) 06:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Trickykidd, well, you could have mentioned that in your edit summary, and it is not much work. Not hard to press the revert button. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, you are right. To add the third quarter was not much work! But u deleted it while i was adding new albums. THIS was much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickykidd (talk • contribs) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, just know to provide what you were doing in the edit summary. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I always did Trickykidd (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't provide enough, your edit summary was very broad, and made it seem like you were adding a section for no reason. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 07:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How do you send messages?

Joseph Prasad, I have a question for you. How do you send messages? I received a thank you note, and I have no idea how you did it, so I can only respond in your talk page. I see a link for "e-mail this user", which I haven't tried, but your message didn't feel like an e-mail, so I don't know how you do that trick. And by the way, always glad to fix formatting. Thank you for improving content, a much harder task. Mburrell (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mburrell, to send a "Thank you", if you go to the revision, you will see an option to thank. Next to the undo button. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Since the next block likely will be for a long duration, please use these two weeks to familiarize yourself with the policies of our project.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. It was edit-warring, true. (aw, this is gonna be a boring spring break, oh well, my fault.) I've read a couple of essays, but I am not quite sure where to look to "familiarize myself with the policies". Can you link me to some pages of those said policies, Ymblanter? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:PG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Winkelvi. I will take a look at that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You were already given a stating page for policies. Possibly the one you need the most is Wikipedia:Consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand what I have been blocked for, edit warring is a problem with me, and I apologize. But I feel it can be fixed, and I feel I have been blocked for long enough. I won't do it again, I have read the policies and guidelines as I have been told. I have learned to go to the talk page, and if an issue should arise, to take it to the appropriate noticeboard instead of continuing to edit war. Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given that this is your fourth block since January for edit-warring, a 2 week block is entirely appropriate. The next block will be significantly longer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Note to reviewing admin: If necessary, I am willing to serve as a mentor to Joseph and help keep him from getting himself into this sort of situation again. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to allow this if Joseph agrees to this mentorship. I do believe he's a good faith editor who's been playing fast and loose with the undo button but can be persuaded to change his behavior with a good mentor such as SNUGGUMS. Also, while there have indeed been 4 blocks in as many months, Joseph was certainly being hounded by an editor who was reporting him for any slip up regardless of the merits of his reverts or the disruption he was actually causing. Not making excuses for him, but I do think that mitigates the block log somewhat. @Ymblanter and Ohnoitsjamie: any objections to a conditional unblock, with Jamie's warning emphasized as much as possible? Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not have problems with this arrangement.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK by me. Thanks for stepping up to mentor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Alright Joseph, if you agree to the mentorship offered by Snuggums above, we'll unblock you. Please understand that all are in agreement that Jamie's warning about the next block being significantly longer is completely accurate, and you'll seriously be expected to change your ways. Thank you for stepping up Snuggums. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 19:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Swarm, Ymblanter, and Ohnoitsjamie for the support to the arrangement, and to SNUGGUMS for the stepping up to help me. Understanding that the next block would be significantly longer, I will accept the mentorship. I will try to stick to one, two reverts at most, then take it to the talk page, or a noticeboard if an issue should arise. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure. The one thing I'm not sure of is this, Swarm, Ymblanter, Ohnoitsjamie: How long should I monitor Joseph? Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I just came up with a proposal: 1RR restriction for three months (except for reverts of obvious vandalism, copyright violations, socks of blocked/banned users, and BLP violations as per WP:3RRNO) with no further changes against others' reverts WITHOUT USING TALK PAGE OF ARTICLE AND/OR USERTALK. If unsure about whether a second revert is justifiable with 3RRNO, consult me and/or an admin before taking action. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I guess I could do that. That was kinda what I was gonna do anyway, so I'll accept that. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 20:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(←) Okay Snuggums, that sounds like a very reasonable restriction that'll keep Joseph out of trouble. I would say the mentorship should be indefinite in length and it'll be left to your discretion as the mentor to decide when it's no longer necessary. You're free to either formally notify Joseph when the mentorship ends or just allow it to de facto become inactive but at the end of the day it'll be up to you. The only specific condition I'll point out is the obvious one that it should last at least throughout the three month period he's under the 1rr restriction. Thank you again for stepping up! I'll unblock you now Joseph. Best, Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 22:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I'm also willing to help users outside of 1RR restrictions. Joseph, I also strongly suggest keeping distance from any users you feel likely to have conflicts with during this time. This includes not editing a page immediately after such users edit them. I'm sure that once July comes, your editing reputation will have improved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm going to do, definitely try to keep away from the editor that keeps reporting me, that's the main editor I have had conflict with in the past. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And thank you to Swarm for the unblock. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Welcome back and happy editing. Your comeback "Makes Me Happy." :) All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 06:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MaranoFan. But why is the "Makes Me Happy" in quotes? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were a fan of Drake Bell....?? Makes Me Happy?? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 06:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Can I have your commentary here? All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 06:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I didn't know what you meant by it. I expected a Meghan Trainor thing from you, not a Drake one. And sure. I skim over it now, but I have school and have to get to sleep, so I will make a complete "scan" tomorrow. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)