User talk:Alextwa

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of 68.160.216.56 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 14:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:71179822105kh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:71179822105kh.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Jlsiglertonyawardsa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jlsiglertonyawardsa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Alextwa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! feydey 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.

Pick an image name.

When uploading an image, pick a file name that is descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.

Source the image.

On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so. If it's from the web, give a URL. If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.

Provide copyright and license information.

This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.

If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.) Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}. Be sure to mention that you created the image. If you're using {{PD}}, you may also want to use {{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.

If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content. This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use". Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.

Describe the image.

To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page. Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. feydey 02:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP

Please stop uploading multile copies of the same image under diferant names. All of the images that are duplicates of Image:Jlsiglertonyawards.jpg that are not in use in articles has been deleted. If this iameg is needed for an article, and meets the terms of image use, please reupload ONLY ONE copy of the image. Thanks! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie-Lynn Sigler

If I may ask, what are you trying to accomplish with this page? Your edits have been reverted by three different editors now as being unconstructive. Adding a tracker to the end of one of the external links doesn't help either.

Also, please don't remove AfD notices from pages. Thanks. Grand master ka 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP SPAMMING

PLEASE stop spamming in the Paris Hilton article. Lil Flip246 15:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Awards of 2007

Thank you for your contributions to Grammy Awards of 2007. Some edits have been made to the article in order to bring it into harmony with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines shown there. All edits that do not follow these guidelines have been changed to match what our MoS recommends. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so.

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you added new information to Grammy Awards of 2007 — we thank you for doing so, but in order to satisfy our verifiability policy policy, we need to know from which sources you got that information. Just adding a link to the article next to your addition would be all right, or you could put it in the article's discussion page. If you need any help, feel free to ask me at my talk page. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 11:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are strongly encouraged to consider following the Wikipedia Manual of Style, since many of your edits are departing from the customary guidelines in ways that other editors report as being very disagreeable. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so. Extraordinary Machine 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.
You're reverting genuinely useful edits, including typo and formatting fixes. Doing so repeatedly is considered vandalism, and may lead to you being blocked from editing for a period. Please stop. Extraordinary Machine 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted on the Grammy Awards of 2007 article more than three times in a 24 hour period; as such, I've reported you at WP:AN/3RR. Extraordinary Machine 14:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on September 5 2006 to Grammy Awards of 2007

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 15:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

come take a look

hey alextwa --

i've recently made a policy proposal change for 3RR. i noticed you were blocked a short time ago. i'm not sure my suggested changes would have helped in your case, but the idea is spell things out more clearly so people aren't blocked unexpectedly and don't end up bitter about wikipedia.

here are the proposals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Proposed_policy_changes

comments are welcome.

Justforasecond 16:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Alextwa, putting incorrect death information on biographies of living persons, not to mention calling the subjects "sluts" and "pieces of shit", as you did on Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, is a gross violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Please do not do it again, or you may be blocked without further warning. Thanks. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Christina Aguilera. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. ShadowHalo 02:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please provide the article from forbes.com, where they claimed the Back to Basics Tour grossed over $93 million and is expected to top $100 Million with merchandise and VIP packages included? Because I searched for the article and couldn't not find. Until you find the source, I will revert it back the $43 million Billboard said the tour grossed.ThisIsMyName 09:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:0000036091 20061130154852.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:0000036091 20061130154852.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:E997503jij9.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:E997503jij9.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful (Christina Aguilera song)

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Beautiful (Christina Aguilera song). Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Thank you. 17Drew 21:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: 50th Grammy Awards. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please remain civil in your edit summaries or you may be blocked. sho y 03:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at 50th Grammy Awards, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. sho y 03:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

I know A NARAS MEMBER! WE ARE DOING IT MY WAY. I KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN YOU DO!

January 2008

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Christina Aguilera. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you. w^L^{<speak·check>} 14:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Max Liron Bratman

An editor has nominated Max Liron Bratman, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Liron Bratman and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undo

Hi, ?? -- Harro (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits

Is there a reason you continue to remove a sourced professional review from this article? [2] [3] [4] Please also stop re-adding the "TBA" to the "next album" field - there has been no confirmation of any new album in 2009 and this violates WP:CRYSTAL. - eo (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is because it is very short and not considered professional b/c it is not detailed. User:Alextwa

It is not considered professional by whom? You? The Times is reputable and there is no reason to remove it. If the review was equally as short but 4 stars instead of 2 stars, would you remove it? - eo (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not to the point and detailed. Its as simple as that. I follow music industry and it just is not detailed enough and thats why I keep removing it.

User: Alextwa

What does "following the music industry" have to do with anything? And again, you continue to re-add the "TBD"/"TBA" in the "next album" field. I'm asking you once again to stop this - the review is from a respected newspaper and its length does not make it any less legitimate. - eo (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess stardards of quality of reviews differs when you compare the US and UK. But it you really want to be technical about it then what I say is true and i'm not trying to be in anyone's face about it. I want the net to be as close to quality as possible. It doesn't make anyone bad or good though. Its just things are different and no one is at fault as a result.

User: Alextwa

January 2009

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Lady GaGa, you will be blocked from editing. — Realist² 03:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Lady GaGa. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. — Realist² 03:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Christina Aguilera, you will be blocked for vandalism. Do not remove talk page comments because you do not like the topic of discussion — Realist² 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Avril Lavigne, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. A8UDI talk 22:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

Just a friendly reminder that the use of ALL CAPS is strongly discouraged, as it may be interpreted as shouting. Thank you :) A8 UDI 05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alextwa. You have new messages at Talk:Avril_Lavigne.
Message added 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from 52nd Grammy Awards. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The nominee lists are intended to remain in the article. | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting the lists of nominees from 52nd Grammy Awards. The current consensus at Talk:52nd_Grammy_Awards#deleting_nominees is to leave them in the article. If you wish, please discuss the changes you want to make there, before deleting so much content from the article yet again. Thanks much -- Foetusized (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hot Chili Peppers

It's true the band won best boxed/limited edition package, but it says the award is in the packaging genre, which has nothing to do with the music performed on the album, just the art design. Many acts win in these kinds of categories, sometimes the award goes directly to band members, but it's usually not counted in the artist's total precisely for comparison purposes. Check List of awards and nominations received by Red Hot Chili Peppers and see only 5 grammies are mentioned; it's the same for most artists. For instance, do check List of awards and nominations received by Radiohead. Just a thought. Purple Colorings (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then those lists should be changed. This page itself for grammy award records includes non-performance awards. Artists are often involved with other aspects other than performance. They should be properly credited on this page. In the GRAMMY Magazine from 2007 it shows a picture of the RHCP with 4 Grammys. --Alextwa (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed!

I did change the article name, for Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Del Rey

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lana Del Rey. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, 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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please see WP:TALKDONTREVERT.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How am I being disruptive? I was adding content. I know the policies of Wikipedia and I have tons of experience even though I have been away for a while. --Alextwa (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You appeared to revert this consensus; I don't know if this was intentional or not, but I do think your other edits were constructive and beneficial to the page. Do let me know if I misunderstood. Have a great day!--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was made a reviewer, so I can review disputes. No need to make accusations of disruptive editing. Do you need me to look at something? Just ask politely. I won’t bite. --Alextwa (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your editing. I appreciate your beneficial and constructive edits to the article, and it was a misinterpretation of your work on my part. There was originally a dispute here between me and another editor; the third was blocked for WP:PA. I started an RfC here which garnered the third opinion of users and appeared to establish overwhelming consensus on the subject. There's already been multiple reversions by two users (one of which was involved in the original dispute) today of the consensus I linked above, and I should've definitely stepped back and applied WP:COOL before making any assumptions. Thank you for your contributions, have a fantastic week.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give me time to review it. I can help. Even though I am familiar with folk musicians, my knowledge of Ms. Grant is limited. But I’ll take a look. I can be impartial and it looks like too many users have a vested interest in this dispute. I can be neutral. --Alextwa (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this has been a hot-button issue for many editors given the controversial nature of the subject - thank you for your help.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revoked Reviewer user right, as you obviously have no idea what it is and attempted to use it to assert your authority. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

~~There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]