User talk:Twister Swagger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
my talk page
January 2026
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Nicki Minaj, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Lapadite (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- RnB fails WP: EXPLICITGENRE - no source provided claims ‘Minaj is an R&B singer’ Twister Swagger (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Your edit on SZA
I have removed your edit here on the SZA article adding a paragraph about her alleged plastic surgeries. Wikipedia is not the place to parrot celebrity gossip, whether or not "some sources questioned [...] the noticeable differences in her appearance
". Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 04:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- My sources are well established and fully support the claim. The discussion surrounding plastic surgery is widely present in analyses of her public image, and other high-profile artist articles (such as Michael Jackson’s) also address plastic surgery when the discourse reaches this level of prominence.
- I find it inconsistent to argue for removing this material on the basis that it resembles tabloid content, while the article retains adjacent sections like this " Her known former partners include Drake, whom she dated in 2009. Another is an unnamed fashion designer, with whom she was in a relationship for eleven years, five years of which were spent engaged to be married " (Wikipedia is not the place to parrot celebrity gossip huh?). If the plastic surgery discussion is deemed inappropriate, then consistency would require reassessing other comparable biographical content as well.
- Removing this material appears (to me) to be a matter of personal discomfort rather than editorial policy (I see you super fan), and editorial decisions should be based on sourcing, relevance, and precedent—not individual preference. Twister Swagger (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- It is not a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP as it says: — Ask yourself whether the source is reliable (Capital Xtra, Revolt, iHeart, MusicTimes, and Hot 97 are established sources widely used on Wiki's musical articles); whether the material is being presented as true (SZA admitted herself to have received plastic surgery, and then admitted herself she regretted it); and whether it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject (It is undoubtedly part of her public image; just ask me, and I'll find other sources that prove this).Twister Swagger (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- An entire paragraph on plastic surgery is undue no matter how many reliable sources you have for it, and whether or not she admitted it is irrelevant here. I encourage you to reread the guidelines for biographies for living persons. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 12:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- But let me ask: why is it considered acceptable for Michael Jackson’s (or Kelly Rowland’s, to take a living example) article to include multiple sections-or mentions-of plastic surgery, even contributing to its status as a Featured-or-Good Article, while widely reported and discussed plastic surgery on SZA is, according to you, undue? Twister Swagger (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- An entire paragraph on plastic surgery is undue no matter how many reliable sources you have for it, and whether or not she admitted it is irrelevant here. I encourage you to reread the guidelines for biographies for living persons. Elias 🦗🐜 [Chat, they chattin', they chat] 12:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
- It is not a violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP as it says: — Ask yourself whether the source is reliable (Capital Xtra, Revolt, iHeart, MusicTimes, and Hot 97 are established sources widely used on Wiki's musical articles); whether the material is being presented as true (SZA admitted herself to have received plastic surgery, and then admitted herself she regretted it); and whether it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject (It is undoubtedly part of her public image; just ask me, and I'll find other sources that prove this).Twister Swagger (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Giubbotto non ortodosso per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped. Izno (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.