User talk:A21sauce/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Care To Explain + Watch Your Tone

Don't adopt this tone with me. How can removing sourced material be justified as constructive? Should I assume that according to you, far too many people are inspired by Beyonce and you are just removing the least famous ones just to [trim the] overlong list of singers influenced by her? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You are bringing up the past, and you're a rabid fan so there's no chance of reasoning with you so I won't try, thanks.--Aichik (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Rabid fan? Really? And how should I categorize you? As a (Personal attack removed)? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

P>S Watch your tone and selection of words. I am not your relative. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, You watch YOUR tone, (Personal attack removed). "I am not your relative." Like I was saying I was? Your user page is a religious shrine to Beyoncé, a rich pop star for whom you work for free, thus (Personal attack removed). As for calling me a hater, you really need to read more, and stop staring (Personal attack removed) all day.--Aichik (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Wtf is with you? Do you know what are you talking about? Calm down first and then chill out your head. You are removing a sourced material from a page and adding nonconstructive and offensive comments. You have really good chances to be blocked.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles

Hello! I toyed with this as well, initially I put in "Superbowl" and then "Mrs. Carter Show World Tour", but then it got removed by other editors. I agree with them now, however, they are significant because that's what's happened so far in 2013, but not so in long-term of her biography, we would end up changing it anyway, so the most prominent project she does in that time scale should take hold (especially because she is first and foremost, a recording artist). —Jennie | ☎ 20:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. No - I said that I put other things in and then they got removed. At the moment the section is weighted towards other things than the album, but this is WP:RECENTISM. By the end of 2013, the fifth studio album will be the most significant project she has worked on as a recording artist and thereby single performances (Superbowl, Obama's inauguration) won't be significant in terms of a career-long biography. The reason why the tour can't be included is because lots of artists (Beyoncé included) tour regularly, and if every subheading included every time there was a tour, things would become complicated; thus, the artists most prominent project(s) of that time frame taking the sub-heading title. (Thanks for your work on the legacy section also, I've moved some of the influenced artist stuff into a new article). —Jennie | ☎ 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

But her dancing is as important as her singing. Think about it.--Aichik (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh

Tone down the discussion of other editors' motives. I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but if you let that irritation cause you to lash out and insult other editors again, I'll block you.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear: the next time you make a comment even remotely like this one you will be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw your response on TBrandley's page, so let's make this explicitly clear: your edits constituted a personal attack on Jivesh. It doesn't matter how irritated you were. It doesn't matter how you feel about his motivations. Your comment placed you squarely in the wrong, and, if you repeat a comment like that, you will be blocked until you agree to stop.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tbhotch did a pretty good job of editing them out. The only borderline issue was "rabid fandom", and even that was pretty questionable.—Kww(talk) 23:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How about with a polite notice about how the article had grown too large and required significant reduction? Something about how it had the potential to become an ever-growing list? As I said above, I'm sympathetic to your irritation, but a key part of editing here is being able to control your response to your irritation and refrain from attacking others.—Kww(talk) 23:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Be careful not to edit war(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=540396420&oldid=540395258 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beyonc%C3%A9_Knowles&diff=540391506&oldid=540363856), either.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Good. When huge pop stars like Adele and Rihanna say they're inspired by Beyoncé then it's definitely worth a mention in her bio article. 0z (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re: Beyoncé Knowles

Hi Aichik, I've made a suggestion here that is aimed towards ending the current impasse. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles

Hello, on the basis that biographies don't refer to it all, biography.com, for example, says how Rowland met Knowles' family following the former's move to Houston, and they became subsequent friends. —Jennie | ☎ 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles

The article you provided linked to a blog which is not a reliable source, it also provides a minority view point and shouldn't be included. —Jennie | ☎ 23:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You didn't do much better with your link to the information on Blue Ivy's birth, but I fixed that.--Aichik (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you provided make any mention of suspicion, please stop point of view pushing by introducing original research in an attempt to add something controversial into the article. You aren't helping the good article reassessment at all. —Jennie | ☎ 20:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not pushing a point of view: It's mere logic. Asking at Help desk, so just be patient. And you're not the best with GAR either.--Aichik (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Thanks for your note on my Talk page. I scanned the discussion you referenced, and found what seems to be endless bickering. As I said some time ago in reply to User:Bencherlite, I don't want to get involved. I think it would merely degenerate into me arguing pointlessly with fans. The truth is, I have no personal interest in Beyoncé or other pop divas of the moment. My point was that, in the grand scheme of things, these personalities don't merit anywhere near the wordage they get on Wiki. The current Beyoncé article runs to about 7,500 words -- too many! Sca (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

RE: Beyoncé edits

"Heavy" is a loaded word, and does not help the neutrality of the GA. The Chicago Manual of Style is helpful for your grammar claim; "articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title.""articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title." —Jennie | ☎ 21:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The word "heavy" would imply that the criticism was significant, and it only came from a small minority (in comparison to things like the inauguration). Does it need replacing? It still stands that she was criticized for promoting an unhealthy drink by people; its the claim that the parties or wider media did so "heavily" that is unfounded. (It would be difficult to obtain a third opinion, if the talk page was used it would be likely a fan would want its removal).

On a side note, I used the word "naturally" to draw a distinction between a Caesarean section (not to be assertive about the surrogacy claims - although I think it's safe to assume that she did actually give birth). —Jennie | ☎ 17:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The view that her pregnancy was a surrogacy is a minority viewpoint that doesn't need representation in the article; although I have tweaked with the sentence slightly (to make her intentions with the documentary more clear). —Jennie | ☎ 18:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really; a lot of the media at the time reported it purely because it was controversial, many admitting that it was false. It doesn't deserve much ground seeing the only evidence rests on a dress folding. —Jennie | ☎ 19:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this is just a personal judgment (a widely believed one, though). Although, I am interested in seeing why you believe the contrary, what's your other evidence? (On a side note, and out of interest, are you a fan yourself? Or just assiting with the c/e?) —Jennie | ☎ 19:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I already showed you in my edits. The evidence that you took to be "original research" and now the fact that she had the opportunity to close the book but didn't with her doc.--Aichik (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The performance you cited, The X Factor (France), was on June 28. And assuming BIC was born after the full 9 months, we assume that she was conceived in April (in fact, we know its precisely April 22, as Jay-Z on "Glory" tells us Beyoncé shot her album package the next day). So, she was two months pregnant, and therefore eligible to do almost anything. I'm not seeing the problem here. —Jennie | ☎ 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Read first trimester description in the pregnancy article. Read it three times slowly and think for awhile before you respond to me.--Aichik (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't try to tell me you can't dance in the first trimester of pregnancy just to prove a point. As she said in her doc, she was advised by her doctor to continue her work schedule as normal in the early stages of her pregnancy. —Jennie | ☎ 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps glance over the "Exercise" section too. —Jennie | ☎ 22:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Quinn

I've no idea whether the editors are close to Quinn or not. As I remember, I said there is no disernable evidence of that. Frankly, it would be astounding if an article on a politician were not often edited by supporters, and sometimes staffers etc. I simply removed the tag because old tags with no evidence of continuing discussion or obvious bias should normally be removed. Paul B (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't ... what? We don't keep tags up endlessly when discussion is non-existent for months or years. And we don't just assume things on the basis of speculation. Are you saying we should tag the article because the photo is nice!!!! Paul B (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have an odd definition of sarcasm. Are you aware of the definition of shouting? If it is unreferenced use the..."unreferenced" tag! Paul B (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. I'm going offline now. Paul B (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BRD at Madonna (entertainer)

Per WP:BRD, the obligation is yours to bring up a discussion about your desired text addition to Madonna (entertainer), talking about a new boyfriend of Madonna's. See you at Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé

I agree, strange wording. However, I think it stems from her revealing she was pregnant "unofficially" a few hours before on the red carpet of the ceremony, only to do it properly later. I'd say re-word it, unless the source says that what she did on the red carpet pulled in viewers for the actual ceremony. If not, the editor who put it in is drawing inferences. —Jennie | ☎ 19:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Her trip to Malaysia (as part of the I Am... World Tour) garnered criticism for her sexualized performances and she subsequently cancelled (with similar cancellations happening on the tour and for other artists). Also, when her and Jay-Z hired out the lavish Hampton's mansion in New York, their vacation got a lot of attention (an example of one of the NBC reports). Their anniversary trip to Cuba is just another one of these surges in media reporting that arises from their celebrity status and how they choose to spend money. —Jennie | ☎ 22:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, we don't have the Malaysia trip? I think that's important for someone we keep mentioning getting International Artist awards. I agree with the Hampton's mansion, who cares, but I think the Cuba trip is different. It's quite politicized, not them being rich wackos.--Aichik (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The stuff on Malaysia is covered over on the I Am... World Tour page. I'm still not convinced about Cuba, perhaps we should review this in a weeks time and assess whether it is newsworthy and notable? —Jennie | ☎ 21:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Responded on your Talk page.--Aichik (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Madonna (entertainer). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. If you cannot adhere to WP:BRD and continue reverting, next time it will be WP:ANI. And you started the tone of calling an user ageist. So either cease that tone else none of use are assuming good faith in this edit. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I did cease the tone and you know it: You're repeating it over and over with glee. Not exactly helping things, IndianBio.--Aichik (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyoncé Knowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CFDA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[1]  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The notice is no longer on the administrators' board. From this we can conclude that everyone's moved on to more productive debates?--Aichik (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

GOCE April 2013 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2013 events newsletter We finished the April blitz and are preparing to start our May backlog elimination drive. The April 2013 events newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, BDD, and Miniapolis Sign up for the May drive! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BMA

I wasn't aware the debate was still ongoing until now, so I've included the other Billboard Awards for more balance. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 19:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beyoncé Knowles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Was Here (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi section

Hey, you split the Pepsi endorsement away from Products and endorsements but there is a sentence or two about H&M at the end. Would you consider re-naming the content or moving the sentence(s)? —Jennie | ☎ 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure.--Aichik (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! —Jennie | ☎ 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point! I'll change it. —Jennie | ☎ 15:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Beyoncé edits

1) The fact that an artist releases under a certain label hardly needs to be repeated throughout an article and is clearly discernible from the infobox and a mention in the lead. A music publisher is different to a record label (as I explained to you previously) and the distinction did not need to be randomly made at this point or any where else.

2) I wasn't the editor who added the information about them being a $1 billion dollar couple, I re-phrased and provided the source, and did so before you posted your objection on the talk page today (so I'm hardly ignoring a "discussion" when none existed).

3) Your right; it's not the style of an intro to have references, as long as its cited in the main body - which it isn't (I checked) even briefly.

Please don't take the reversion or further editing of your edits so personally; none of the above is deserved of a "warning" and spouting threats isn't necessary. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 19:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Fog (2005 film)

Hi, can you copy edit The Fog again? I just added more details. Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Aichik (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Another thing, are you a Chinese American like me? Just curious.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the copy editing.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Richards Smit, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Wave, Knickerbocker and MFA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 22:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Beyoncé Knowles

If you mean redundant in terms of the commonplace across Wikipedia, I understand, but it does offer cohesion with other Music BLPs and rankings, here, although there definitely are some, aren't as prolific as Honors and awards. Concerning the "Fifth studio album", biographical sections should always refer to the primary projects or events in that time frame, we know we have very little details on it, but we are assured it's "on its way" quite soon. By then it will take a much more proportionate role in the section (which I know it isn't currently) but other titles referring to say the Super Bowl Half-Time performance, The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour, Pepsi and Epic (projects we know about) are assuredly less relevant and will eventually be changed to album title anyway. (In a nutshell: I understand, and, in part, agree with your concerns, but it's almost delaying the inevitable fact that the fifth studio album is and will be the primary concern of the 2013 section). —Jennie | ☎ 20:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the slight ramble and have you looked at the Rihanna article? I recently tagged it for copyediting concerns and it very much needs a clean-up (although perhaps more than the Beyoncé Knowles GAR required). —Jennie | ☎ 20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay to the Fifth Album section title, but you haven't convinced me about the Awards and Honors title. The third paragraph in it is entirely rankings: Saying one is wealthy isn't an honor or an award. In addition, rankings are also listed in the other two paragraphs. In the first, there is one at the end, by VH1. Record Grammy nominations aren't an award or an honor either, they are rankings from the awards. You can't make awards out of awards, in other words. And as far as working on Rihanna's article, I see that you or someone else have hurried the Beyoncé article to "Good Article" status even though you were not the one who brought the issue up. I will follow your directives if you follow mine, but so far you really haven't: It's not just limited to this reversion of "Awards and Honors" but other issues I brought up on Beyoncé's talk page you never answered.--Aichik (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly Aichik, the GAR was overran by 4 months and I would thoroughly recommend you have a go at reviewing some articles with the criteria so you understand the process more clearly. Claiming that a few spelling or grammar errors show wider symptoms of the article was unfounded, and suggests that you were more determined not to see it promoted.

Concerning the Honors and awards section, the section is predominantly this, with some rankings mixed in. However, even the nature of the last paragraph means that it isn't entirely rankings, with references to aspects of success. What about keeping the two paragraphs as they are and creating a Wealth section? —Jennie | ☎ 21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You know that isn't true Aichik, if anything, I was continually supportive of your copyediting of the article and of additions that other editors opposed because they were contentious. However, having experience with GAs and knowing the criteria quite soundly, it really did lay with summary style and related organisation, which was solved quite efficiently. You proposed 3 other criteria as problematic, which were all shown to be fine, and prolonging it to "copy edit" (unless it had spelling/grammar issues) is of no concern to the process. —Jennie | ☎ 20:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent Beyoncé edits

Just in case I wasn't clear in the talk page note you reverted, public image constitutes someone's personality, appearance and general reception. Costuming on The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour has a section for the looks and designers she has worked with; including the reception. Thanks. —Jennie | ☎ 21:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

None of your words mean anything, Jennie, if you can't apply them to those accused of stealing from Beyoncé. The looks Rihanna and Ciara allegedly stole are of her performance persona not herself. You yourself wrote that bit on Sasha Fierce and you can't even apply your own argument. Completely laughable.--Aichik (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Beyoncé Knowles. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2013 (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).

A21sauce (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Editor who blocked me didn't follow the 3-revert edit rule

Decline reason:

It isn't necessary to breach 3RR to get blocked for edit warring. Request doesn't address reason for block, so declining as a matter of procedure. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:08, 23 May 2013 (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.

First off, you are not entitled to 3 reverts in 24 hours per WP:EW. Second, do you have a different definition of the number 3? [2], [3], [4], [5]? Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I thought it was of the same material. This is a great rule!--Aichik (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't the rule, it is a rule of thumb and a bright line. The rule itself is "Don't edit war". Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried not to, sorry. But I went along with a self-proclaimed "experienced" Wikipedia editor.--Aichik (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I understand getting caught up in the moment, we all can at times, but by the second revert you have to follow the guidance in WP:BRD, talk about it on the talk page, and let things cool down. When two editors are battling it out on an article, other editors get caught in the crossfire sometimes and it is just disruptive. I would also note that your tone in your edit summary was inexcusable. Don't treat other people that way, I have no patience for it, and neither do others here. It was misogynistic. That is not acceptable here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, sorry. The other editor is really talented in offending with a smile. I should take notes:)--Aichik (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice required

Please note that whenever you discuss someone's actions on WP:ANI you must notify them. In your report regarding Jennie--x (talk · contribs) you failed to do so. You obviously ignored the big orange box that popped up when you edited the page. Please be sure to notify anyone in the future you may discuss. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I was ABOUT TO. You could clearly see that I was editing my entry before you blocked me.--Aichik (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Beyoncé Knowles shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Calm down, dude - you already got blocked once. I know it's annoying when editors like Jennie take ownership of articles but sometimes it's better to take a breather and come back when things have calmed down. Little Professor (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5