User talk:LostIntheCityLights

Smallville

While you're additions to the Smallville (season 10) article were/are welcomed, I had to revert them because of the source you are using. SupermanHomepage is a fansite, and unless the fansite is conducting a one-on-one interview themselves, we cannot use them. That is why Kryptonsite is only used in cases there the webmaster himself has met with individuals in a Q&A situation. Granted, I know the information is accurate, it's just a matter of what is an acceptable source. So, if a more reliable source can be found (a news organization that has editorial oversight, and is not run by a couple of fans) then we can probably adjust what is currently being sourced. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Megan Joy. When removing content, 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 content 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. Aspects (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Daughtry discography. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Lady Gaga discography. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Bell EP

I've deleted Losing You (EP) as a blatant hoax. I can't find any sign of this EP anywhere: not on Bell's MySpace page, YouTube channel, official websites, iTunes, Amazon, anywhere.

If I'm wrong, and you actually have evidence that this thing exists, let me know, and I'll restore the article. If I'm right, and you made this up because you were bored, please note that I have no tolerance for this kind of thing, and doing it again will result in you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the proof about his Losing You EP. http://www.facebook.com/bell.drake It's when he posted a video of his music video 'You're Not Thinking' - it says Official HD Music Video for the song "You're Not Thinking" from the forthcoming Drake Bell EP out June 21st, 2011 worldwide on iTunes.

I'll withdraw the hoax accusation, but I won't restore the article. I see the text you are talking about on http://www.facebook.com/bell.drake?sk=wall . His post yesterday did include the text about the EP. Click on the post, though, and you will see that all references to the EP have been removed from the video description. Yesterday, it said "Official HD Music Video for the song "You're Not Thinking" from the forthcoming Drake Bell EP out June 21st, 2011 worldwide on iTunes. This video was shot wh...", but today it says "Official HD Music Video for the song "You're Not Thinking" This video was shot while touring in Latin America from June - September 2010." Something happened: it was either a mistaken announcement or an early announcement.

That's why it is important to have multiple, reliable sources and to include those sources in the article. There was nothing in the article you created to show where it came from, and you still haven't provided any evidence for the playlist you included: that wasn't sourced by the YouTube announcement.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Untitled Third Daughtry Album for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Untitled Third Daughtry Album is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Third Daughtry Album until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Aspects (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Daughtry discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography articles

Please note that hitsdailydouble is not considered a reliable source. Please do not add info from there and insert as-yet-unpublished/confirmed chart positions. Thank you.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - eo (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, The Biggest Loser Australia (season 2). 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. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Daughtry discography. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Shinedown. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 19:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Soon Forgotten (Album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Soon Forgotten (Album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soon Forgotten (Album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. C628 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Last Day (album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Last Day (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last Day (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. C628 (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Daughtry discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please do not add non-notable events to the Wikicalendar articles, such as those you added to November 21. Only events that are globally notable are eligible for the list. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, look at those other events on that list. Do you really think two modern rock band releasing albums on the same day really fits in with the events listed at that article? Is this really comparable to those other things on the list, like events in major wars or natural disasters? >_> Sergecross73 msg me 14:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do.

You are terribly mistaken then. Good luck with that... Sergecross73 msg me 15:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are.

Fake numbers

Please refrain from posting fake numbers in Daughtry's pages. It is vandalism. Don't turn Daughtry pages into a joke which is what you are doing. Hzh (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it's a joke? Do you even know Daughtry's actual numbers?

If they are real, all you have to do is provide your source. Please, do so. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism September 2011

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Leave This Town. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 02:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at American Idol alumni single sales. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hzh (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of Break the Spell

A tag has been placed on Break the Spell requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead recreating the page. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make this simple: if you create that article again, I'll block you until you agree to stop.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete an article which is true? Maybe you should do some research before deleting it.

We have no reason to believe it's true, because you never provide any sources. You've created the same article seven times, changing the supposedly true name of the article each time. Right now, as I said, it's a very simple matter: if you recreate it again, you will be blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 10:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consult Chris Daughtry's official twitter, He announced yesterday 'Break the Spell' is the album name, and go to DaughtryOfficial, You can get Renegade as a single, and you can listen to Crawling Back to You in full. You're in the wrong here.

No, you're in the wrong here, because of the way you keep trying to write these articles. 1) It is your burden to find sources yourself if you ever want the article to stick. 2) Another main problem is that every time you or that other guy make the article, there's virtually no content. Try adding something of more substance other than "It's his 3rd album. There's 2 singles". You know, like a history section or something (with sources though.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for inserting false positions into Goo Goo Dolls discography. Looking at the warnings on your page, it's apparent that this has been going on long enough. If you are vandalizing, please stop. If you are using improper sources and making frequent mistakes, please stop that, too.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 10:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism October 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Daughtry discography, you may be blocked from editing. Hzh (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for constant introduction of false information, such as at Break the Spell, where you claimed it had reached #1 on the Billboard 200 and attempted to source it to the Irish music association. You won't be unblocked until you agree to stop introducing false information. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Because I made a few mistakes doesn't mean I should be banned forever LostIntheCityLights (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't banned forever, you are blocked indefinitely; the difference is that your situation can be rectified if the community believes you will correct the behavior which led to this block. However, given the long history of misinformation you have introduced, despite repeated warnings and a previous block, I see no evidence that you intend to stop doing so, given that your unblock request hardly addresses the issue in any depth. --Kinu ^t/_c 14:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.