User talk:AndreaCarax

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, AndreaCarax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DiverseMentality^(Boo!) 20:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I Were A Boy

Please do not change the genre. The genre was dicussed by users. Just because Beyonce is a R&B singer it doesn't make the song R&B. Many artists record songs outside their genres. Thank you. Charmed36 (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Charmed36. Please do not change the genre of the song. This song is more further from R&B than any song Beyonce has ever done. Orane (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Keri Hilson, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Σ xplicit 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

Please do not remove genres from genre fields without explaining your actions, such as leaving an edit summary. Before adding or removing genres, please discuss them on the talk page in order to avoid conflicts. Thank you. — Σ xplicit 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP CHANGING THE GENRE of music please! you do not help Wikipedia in any way like this! (MariAna Mimi 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

June 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on In a Perfect World.... Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Σ xplicit 20:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at In a Perfect World.... Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. So Why 20:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a Perfect World...

Are you aware that deleting sourced information from In a Perfect World... regarding the genres is against wikipedia rules? it is classified as WP:disruptive and/or WP:Tendentious editing. By doing so you are hampering the progress of this article and thus affecting the quality standards which other wikipedia editors are striving for. I invite you to discuss your edits at the discussion page. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You don't seem to want to discuss your edits, can you explain why you think my edits are incorrect despite me providing a reference? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

AndreaCarax, I encourage you to take part of the discussion on the talk page. It's in best interest for everyone to discuss the issue and try to form a consensus. Continuously edit warring is disruptive and may lead into another, longer block. — Σ xplicit 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at In a Perfect World.... Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. So Why 07:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at In a Perfect World.... Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Keri Hilson. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you. Web Hamster 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing sourced genres

I'm tired of it. Everyone is tired of it. The genre field is not a place for your personal opinion. No one cares what your opinion is. If there's a sourced genre, leave it alone. Do not replace it with your personal opinion of what the genre field should be.—Kww(talk) 12:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#User:AndreaCarax has been opened.—Kww(talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistent edit waring at In a Perfect World... and use of sockpuppets to further said edit war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. lifebaka++ 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of At That Point

The article At That Point has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Is no longer notable. It heavily relies on Rap-Up as the main source and has no confirmed release date. Though it has singles only 1 charted. It still has no confirmed track listing or cover art. It should be deleted and relevant information can be salvaged and placed at Teairra Marí.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of At That Point

I have nominated At That Point, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At That Point. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of At That Point

I have nominated At That Point, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At That Point (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of At That Point

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on At That Point, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 1l2l3k (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]