User talk:MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010/January
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:MariAna Mimi. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In A Perfect World (Keri Hilson)
I can i bring to your attention a number of edits that you have made to "in a perfect world" the new album by keri hilson. First of you have done what many other editors have and reverted the article to its table format for the album track-listing. this is a direct violation of wikipedia rules. WP:Albums is the wikipedia for rules regarding albums. It cleary states that album tracklistings should be displayed in a numeric list with the contributors in brackets and the length written after a hyphon. therefore your continuous updates to the article are counter-productive to the cause. i will revert to the correct tracklist format once more and please un-do this. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC))
August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Down to Earth (Jem album) has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/jem) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Down to Earth (Jem album) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/jem) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page You Sang to Me has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page You Sang to Me do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\byoutube\.com' . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Jennifer Lopez. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bmyspace\.com' (link(s): http://www.myspace.com/jenniferlopez) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Anastacia
I see Heavy Rotation (Anastacia Album) exists again. Would you mind if the article were moved to a subpage of your user space so you could continue working on it until it's ready as an aricle? Also, according to naming guidelines "Album" shouldn't be capitalized in the title of the article. Gimmetrow 12:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- Userfied as User:MariAna Mimi/Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album). Gimmetrow 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Let me know when you think the page is ready for article space. The image you uploaded has about a week before it is automatically deleted, though it can be uploaded again of course. Gimmetrow 16:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Article was unprotected through WP:Requests for page protection, so I've moved this version over. Gimmetrow 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I see you are consistently reverting my edit which removes the label name "Universal". I really think its redundant to indicate "universal" since she is signed to a front line label known as Mercury. If we should go with the logic of including "Universal", then we might as well indicated Sony BMG after daylight/epic, making it something like daylight/epic/Sony BMG. But the reality is that this is not the way it's done for hundreds of artist infoboxes here on wiki.
So in keeping consistent with the wiki convention and to avoid redundancies, either we remove universal from the current "mercury / universal" setup. Or we can be a little more redundant and add Sony BMG to make daylight/epic/song bmg, making the "universal / mercury" entry consistent with the first company (but it is still inconsistent with other wiki artist boxes). Obviously the more logical choice would be to omit universal outright.
- First I wanna apologize if I was impolite in any way, I usually forget to sign my posts (bad habit). Her Daylight/Epic releases exhibit the imprints in all markets, and Universal will most likely do the exact same thing in all foreign markets. She is an American based artist, both under daylight/epic and under Mercury since these companies are all based in the US. So in the same way that International Sony BMG companies released/distributed her stuff all over Europe, Asia, Mid East etc. bearing her original frontline label affiliations (daylight & epic), I think Universal International companies will do the same thing with her Mercury releases, a routine practice for decades. So I'm not entirely convinced the two entries have to differ in this way. Again I apologize if I came out impolite. Imperatore (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I was wondering if you can get back to me so we can finalize this issue quickly. Thank. Imperatore (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- First I wanna apologize if I was impolite in any way, I usually forget to sign my posts (bad habit). Her Daylight/Epic releases exhibit the imprints in all markets, and Universal will most likely do the exact same thing in all foreign markets. She is an American based artist, both under daylight/epic and under Mercury since these companies are all based in the US. So in the same way that International Sony BMG companies released/distributed her stuff all over Europe, Asia, Mid East etc. bearing her original frontline label affiliations (daylight & epic), I think Universal International companies will do the same thing with her Mercury releases, a routine practice for decades. So I'm not entirely convinced the two entries have to differ in this way. Again I apologize if I came out impolite. Imperatore (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that sentence proves anythings. In the past she always talked about her people at "sony" referring to sony music, but I don't see sony music after epic & daylight. Secondly I'm in Canada and unfortunately here, as you might know, Universal has not yet brought the album. I don't wanna argue how the convention should be for indicating companies and imprints, the only thing that bugs me is what I had said earlier- the logic of the first entry (not indicating parent) does not match the second entry (indicating parent). Imperatore (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well obviously she worked with tons of people and probably negotiated with many who work in different jobs within Universal. For instance, a marketing or A&R person that works with all the "labels". After all, these labels don't operate in isolation from one another, they are part of one big company, and usually that's the advantage of consolidating them into one big whole. So good for her for writing the thank you note in a way where she won't forget anyone within the company. This is probably even more obvious for an artist like Anastacia who manages a transnational career- she has to deal with "Universal" international companies when she is abroad. But the bottom line for the infobox is: who is she signed to. It seems that she's with the new Mercury through island def jam music group in the usa where David Massey is new exec. So in the US you put the front-line label in the artist infobox, exactly how it is indicated for her us-based signing under epic/daylight. Imperatore (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the album covers and they confirm that its an The Island Def Jam Music Group release under the "mercury" label. So now this reinforces my argument that the standard rule for artists in the US under universal and other multinational parents- you write only the front-line label in wiki. And I was looking at the australian cover, distributed by "universal music australia". I also found it interesting that the universal logo is NOT included on the back cover or spine, but this is irrelevant and doesn't have to do with my argument. 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, in regards to your recent label related revert, I just wanted to point out the "Mercury" of Island Def Jam, is the label to which she is signed and recorded for. This label will appear on the covers and in the database of retailers all over the world, that does not change. So theoretically, every territory can be: universal music / mercury, like the first round of countries on the history table. However, there are currently only four territories which operate "frontline" mercury divisions: Mercury of IDJ (US), Mercury of Mercury Music Group (UK), Mercury of UMFR (France), and Mercury of UMAUS (Australia). US and UK, no question there only Mercury is sufficient to satisfy wp:albums, France could have both labels since "Universal Music" is a key brand, but they love to differentiate based on labels, even though their operations are fully consolidated into one "universal music france". As for Asutralia, they have a Mercury, but theres was strictly created as a local-Australian A&R division, hence it only handles the (Australian) artists it signs; all "international" repertoire goes through the central "UMAUS". Unfortunately they have no website, but Australia's Island Records does have a website- the other local A&R- and under releases you can see that they only handle their own repertoire, therefore you won't see a Mariah Carey album there for example, but you will see her albums at the central UMAUS site. That being said, the release history "label" should be handled like a release company, because if we just go with "labels", then theoretically the entire box should have the label "Mercury". Imperatore (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Dashes
Hey there MariAna Mimi, I'd just like to bring to your attention of dashes. You've changes emdashes to endashes in several articles in the infobox in years recorded. Per WP:DASH, that is incorrect. You should always endashes instead of emdashes in these situations. Just keep this in mind for next time. Thank you! DiverseMentality(Boo!) 18:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Her Name Is Nicole, 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. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Absolutely Positively. 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. Sandstein 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit summary
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. DiverseMentality 19:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album)
Better. Remember that there are only supposed to be 18 charts in any article, so if you add any, you should take others away.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. 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. Willking1979 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Kylie Minogue
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You have reverted edits and removed sourced information from several articles referencing Kylie Minogue. This is "technically" you first warning. If this continues, I will direct this to the admins. Please remember to back up information with reliable, 3rd party sources and to provide an adequate edit summaryAlkclark (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 64.140.0.3 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Brandy edit war?
Hey, it looks like there's an edit war going on between you and Noboyo over professional reviews on Human (Brandy album). I thought I'd mention it just because I'm curious as to why it's so important to you both. So could you perhaps shift it to the talk page and hash it out there and then decide once and for all on something? Souldier77 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Semi protection
Hi Mari, just to let you know, doing this, does not semi protect the article. If you would like the article protected you can make a request here. It must meet the criteria for semi protection however. If you would like the ability to semi protect articles yourself then you need to become an administrator. To do that you must make a request here. All the best. — Realist2 15:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with File:One More Drink Ludacris.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:One More Drink Ludacris.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
- That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Concert tour names
FYI, the reason I reverted your change to Come On Over Tour is that concert tour names are always given in regular font, not italics or quotes. This is a convention we've had in WP since 2005 or so. The reason is that a concert tour is an event, similar to Super Bowl or World Cup or Live Earth, not a particular work of art. It's also beneficial to have them in regular font because many tours are named after albums or songs, and this lets us keep them visually distinct. Thus, we can say things like: the Come On Over Tour was in support of the Come On Over album, and the Vertigo Tour sometimes featured two performances of the song "Vertigo".
And keep up the good work on music articles – we need more real editors on them and fewer IP addresses putting in all sorts of crazy stuff. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just adding that website names shouldn't be italicized either. Please see MOS:TITLE for further information. Thanks, --JD554 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Professional reviews
Per Wikipedia:Album#Professional reviews, we only include 10 reviews in the infobox. Thanks --Madchester (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Down to Earth (Jem album)
- Per Wikipedia:ALBUM#Released, we only list the earliest release date; additional dates should be in a separate section
- Flags are not purely for decoration per WP:MOSFLAG
--Madchester (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, please follow the two policies/guidelines listed above. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Release history
Instead of reverting edits against existing policies/guidelines, feel free to use a release history table from another article (like Down to Earth (Jem album)) as a template for other album or song articles. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to No Line on the Horizon. Thank you. Mfield (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
In regards to your removal of content on No Line on the Horizon; please see the relevant discussion on the Talk page regarding reviews in the infobox. Thank you. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Heavy Rotation Tour
Please read edit summaries and talk page before you make unnecessary edits. To further explain:
- Date Format (Tour Table): (from Manual of Style)
- Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
- Dates in article references should all have the same format.
- If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
- Tour Schedule: (from Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)
- Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
- As stated in my edit summary, the tour currently ends on 7/12/09. Those are the only dates schedule. Thus, as far as the general public is concerned, the tour ends on 7/12/09. When more dates are added, then this can be changed. Saying the tour will have more than one leg or end on a certain date is just pure speculation until it is otherwise reported.
- Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
- External links: Should relate to the content of the article, not the subject. Myspace and Youtube links are fine for an article about the artist themselves but not in this context. Additionally, there is no need to Wiki-link an article to Italy over and over again. One wiki link is sufficient.
Lyonhunter (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dancers: Please, don't try to list dancers in band since they are part of entertainment and song part of the band. Two different categories; that's why there is Musical Director and Entertainment/ Acting/ Dancing Director. Still I thank you for updating this page. comment added by Darkfreakxx7 (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
she said it herself!
When and where? Do you have a link? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by North Gem (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Album reviews and italics
Please do not italicize Allmusic and Slant Magazine under album reviews in In a Perfect World... as these review sites are not magazines; only magazines are italicized. To avoid any confusion, Slant Magazine is an online publication and doesn't offer a paid subscription, which means it also is not an actual magazine. Thank you. — Σxplicit 07:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Editing Etiquette
Hello, Please can i ask that in the interest of courtesy and for ease of understanding when making edits like you have done to Fantasy Ride can you provide an WP:edit summary. this helps other editors identify what changes have been made to articles. I know myself that sometimes i forget to do so, but it does make things easier for other users if you can provide a brief summary of the additions/deletions or changes you have made to an article. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC))
Hi... I noticed that a review I added was removed. I had added it because that was the only favourable review I read online. It would be good to hear the other side of the story as well!~judethedevil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judethedevil (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Reminder (sept2009)
Hi user, please can i remind you that as an editor of experience you should be using a WP:edit summary everytime you make an edit to a page, this makes it easier for other users to work out how helpful your edits were and also saves time because then other editors do not have to search the page history to work out what edits have taken place. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC))
May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Radar (song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. 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. Percxyz (Call me Percy, it's easier) 15:48, 30 May 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. — Σxplicit 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SoWhy 20:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC).
In a Perfect World... external links
In response to this; in the guideline, it states: Album articles may contain an external links section of links to relevant external resources about the album. To emphasize, it continues with: Links to resources about the artist rather than the album do not need to be included here, as these should be linked from the artist's article instead. Meaning, the external links that you've added (her official website and whatnot) best belong in the article Keri Hilson rather than the article about the album, because that website is more about Hilson than it is about the actual album, which is why I removed them to begin with. — Σxplicit 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add the Bulgarian Singles Chart, or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
FAR notice
I have nominated Kylie Minogue for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.Cirt (talk) 11:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Labels
Hi there, I believe we've spoken before... Just wanted to remind you that Anastacia always had an American signing with epic/daylight, even though all the albums were generally released by overseas sony music companies only. In the same way how you've put only "mercury" for the recent album, the same logic is to put epic and daylight as labels in the infobox and discography for the other albums. Either way, we must keep a consistent logic, so if you should put "sony bmg" in the discography under label, then you might as well add "universal music" to the recent album. But the correct (and consistent!) way is as aforementioned (omit all parent companies cuz in the US, where she's always been signed, they operate as standalone/frontline operations). FYI Sony BMG came into existence in 2004, so the first two albums were under sony music as a parent, so this correction had to be made anyway. On another note, I really think it's a commendable job you've done maintaining her page. Imperatore (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed just from the amount of edits in the history tab that you're mostly running the show here. I'll definitely keep her in mind for expansion, although I'm not very familiar since I only really discovered her around the time Left Outside Alone was released to mainstream North American radio. As for the new album, I think it has a solid base, and then some, however there's some outdated information on there. For instance, it's very likely to assume that there's not gonna be a North American tour after all- she remains an export :(. Imperatore (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great! I didn't read up on the musical project yet. Forgot to mention that what I find oddly fascinating about her is that even though she is destined only for european/asian release, under her American signings her A&R people have only hooked her up with mostly American music industry people it seems. Also it seems that virtually all her stuff has been recorded in studios in NYC and LA. This is kind of ironic considering some of the biggest pop songs of the last decade by American artists, e.g. Britney spears, have been recorded in Europe, like in Sweden, by Swedish composers and producers. You would think that somewhere along the line some sony music people in Europe would've had some kind of involvement in the production of her music. But the reality is that she was always marketed as an American import, whereas in America she is an export only (generally speaking) lol. Imperatore (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Opinion - Mediation
Dear User, you have made many constructive edits, please can you add your opinion to the following discussion. thanks (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC))
NowCommons: File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg
File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Chris Pine.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chris Pine.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Opinion/WP:3o
Hello please could you briefly add your opinion to: Talk:Flirt (album)#Article Redirect. Thank you (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC))
Apology
This edit of mine - I apologise. I did not intend to call this vandalism, but I hit the wrong button. It's not vandalism. The "You Tube" link is not needed and is not acceptable by WP:EL. There is a copyright issue, and my earlier comment about not being able to view it in my country, was basically to underline the fact that someone is taking the copyright issue seriously enough to ensure that clips are blocked in some countries. I'm sure people in plenty of countries can view the material, but that is not the point. I really don't care who can and who can't see it. As we're aiming for free content, we don't link to copyrighted external links without strong cause, and in this case, there is no strong cause. We link to the kylie.com official site and if they link to "You Tube", that is the correct path to take. Wikipedia doesn't need to link to "You Tube" directly. Again, my apologies, and I'm sorry that my edit looks like an accusation. I've also put a note on Talk:Kylie Minogue. Also you may be aware that this article is undergoing a major clean-up as part of a WP:FAR. With this in mind, could you please use edit summaries. That will ensure that your edits are not accidentally overwritten as the article is cleaned up. Rossrs (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I Look to You
according to WP:Capitalization it does not matter how the song it titled on an album but you should follow grammatical rules when writing about songs on wikipedia. furthermore once a producer/writer has been mentioned once you should only mention them by surname or first initial and surname according to WP:albums. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC))
Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel
I was NOT vandalising, I was returning it to when it had citation. You have no citation as to if the first single will be released on September 29th, so I will return the page to one with citation and when you have citation for a release date, then add it back. Jayy008 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Track listing
You should actually look at what you are reverting.
- the prepositions should be small case e.g. "Its A Wrap" should be "Its a Wrap".
- barry white for example did NOT physically write the song with MC, but should be accredited because his sample was used.
- The song Betcha Gonna Know is actually called "Betcha Gonna Know (The Prologue)" the note feature should be reserved for specifiying samples and features. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))
Orphaned non-free image (File:Anastacia Defeated Promo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Anastacia Defeated Promo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
){kind=link}
You did not provide a reason for reverting my edit to Kylie Minogue, which fixed the infobox to comply to MoS standards specified at Template:Infobox Musical artist. Do not revert my edits again without valid reason. POKERdance talk/contribs 02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Could you both please discuss this issue rather than just reverting and more reverting. This is a featured article that is currently under review and I don't know how many times the genres have been changed over the last few weeks. Hitting the revert button isn't working, so try something else please. I've spent a lot of time working on the article to try to retain its featured article status and this type of tendentious and disruptive editing on such a minor part of the entire article, undermines that process. I don't care what genres you all decide upon, but please hurry up and sort it out. Take a look at other featured articles, for example. Look at Madonna that only uses three genres, for example. Take it to the music project and get another viewpoint, for example. Please just accept that the constant reverting is getting nowhere and find a more productive approach. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
POKERdance talk/contribs 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Everything Burns
Hi! It appears to me that Everything Burns is a single from the Fantastic Four soundtrack. Therefore that does not make it a single off Pieces of a Dream, leaving the compilation with 2 singles. If this is the case, Pieces of a Dream singles listing and her navbox need to be fixed. Imperatore (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Several month gap between the song and the album. Also it would only make sense to have the first single "Pieces of a Dream" since it's the title of the compilation as well. Also Everything Burns is on Wind-Up and not Epic (if current infobox is accurate), reinforcing that it's not associated directly with her releases. Imperatore (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Just remembered something...Wind-Up (an indie) is distributed by Epic, therefore there will inevitably be a "wind up / epic" like association on various sites.
I Look to You (Issues with Editing)
Your persistance with track-listings is getting rather annoying and disruptive. For whatever reason you seem to prefer tables and tracklist templates to a numeric list which according to WP:album there is no notable reaons for preference. What's more is that you dont seem to be able to allow others to contribute to an article without making nuisance/trivial edits to others additions. for example in the article I Look to You you felt in necessary to change the track-list template seperate the producers and writers. This is only appropriate when we have the exact producers and writers. Right now there is no source in the article which proves this although the rap-up review tells us 9 of the producers/writers. Furthermore WP:Albums Clearly states that once a producer is mentioned once they should then subsequently be mentioned by surname and intial. For example subsequent recurrings of Claude Kelly becomes C. Kelly. Furthermore where an artist has a performaing name e.g. Christopher Stewart = Tricky Stewart, on subsequent mentionings Christopher "Tricky" Stewart should be referred to as Tricky Stewart.
On previous occassions i have backed down e.g. with Anastacia's most recent album and with Keri Hilson's In a Perfect World... but it doesnt not set a good example to other wikipedians if we have users such as yourself going against wikipedia general consensus and editing in such a way that could be seen as disruptive and/or trivial. i am going to revert the track listing format back to its last most correct version. I am more than happy to discuss improvements but will not stand back and watch articles being edited for personal credit/or personal satisfaction. Articles such as this one are likely to be highly trafficked and should adhere to the highest of quality standards. This by the way also includes writing critical reception in continuous prose. Reviews of the same nature/idea should be written in the same paragrph. Reviews should not be listed. Furthermore i would disregard adding any more reviews, the article has enough for now. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
- You wanted proof for what i said, here it is: "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters—write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name (unless the first initial or entire first name is necessary to disambiguate it, as in the Gallagher brothers of Oasis, or Brad and Brett Warren of The Warren Brothers). If all songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." If several songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano, except where noted." This can be found at WP:albums#Article body and then under the tracklist sub-section. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
- with regards to critical reception there is no benefit to having an obsessively large body of text on this when it is copied and sourced from other websites. if people want to read reviews that is why they are listed in the infobox. im sorry if it seemed i was trying to control the content of the article. i was not. we appear to have got off on the wrong foot, it is clear we are both passionate editors and if we work together we can achieve higher editing standards rather than working against each other. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC))
Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel
can i ask where you have sourced the track listing from? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
Re:Question
if you wish to report user for edit warring i recommend WP:AN/EW. On the forum board administrators constantly monitor the discussions. You will be asked to outline exactly when and how the user in question has violated wikipedia rules regarding reversions and editing. I have taken a look at the page history myself and i am 100% confident that the administrators will see a ban as the most appropriate action. You tried to engage in discussion with him/her and they have blatantly refused to comemnt despite several discussion attempts being opened. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
Anastacia's voice type
Hi there MariAna Mimi. Thanks for the inquirery. I am by no means an authority on singing, although I am a professional cellist and know a lot about music. My wife is an opera singer so I have picked up some knowledge from her and of course I know some things just from working as a musician and from my college days. The article originally stated she was a "dramatic soprano". One thing I do know for sure is that a "dramatic soprano" is a specific kind of opera singer. Anastacia is not an opera singer so she can't be a dramatic soprano. Personally, I don't think she is even a soprano. She sounds more like a mezzo-soprano or even a contralto to me. One thing my wife has told me when it comes to figuring out a singer's voice type is that vocal range is not the most important factor (although it does play a role). A lot of people confuse the two. What's more important is a singer's tessitura, or where they feel the most comfortable singing, and the vocal timbre (the way the voice sounds). Anastacia seems to feel more comfortable singing in a low to mid vocal range because that is where she sings most of the time. She also has a deeper/darker timbre than a soprano typically has. So, even if she might have the ability to sing up high she would probably not be classified as a soprano because she doesn't have the "soprano sound". Make sense? Regaurdless, it doesn't matter what I think when it comes to putting her voice type in the article. What we need is a published reliable source.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are welcome.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Heavy Rotation Deluxe Edition.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Heavy Rotation Deluxe Edition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Σxplicit 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
RE: Label Names
Actually if you look under release history section of WP:albums it says no such thing, that quote you've picked out refers to the infobox and if you look at the likes of Spirit (Leona Lewis album) which was fetaured and has been highly approved it is the norm to include the latter part of the record labels for the release history (notice its Syco Music not Syco!), furthermore it is necessary for universal because there is a universal records and and a universal music which are different as well as Island Records and Island Music Group. Mercury also has Mercury Records and Mercury Group, as does Polydor (Polydor Group and Polydor records). (Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC))
Capitalisations and Tracklisting Surnames
WP:albums clearly states that once a producer/writer has been mentioned one in full name e.g. Jorge Drexler in subsequesnt mentionings he/she should be referred to as Drexler. An initial (such as J. Drexler) should only be used if there is more than one person with the same name working on the album. This is not the case with She Wolf (album) so i do not understand why you want this information included so much.
Furthermore wikipedia articles should follow good grammer rules. This is why I Look to You is named as it is and not as I Look To You even though that is it's official title. This logic and rule applies to shakira's second single "Did it Again" (not "Did It Again") (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC))
Shakira performance
Why, if it can be appreciated on videos and the public opinion says it, you edited my input that stated that Shakira made a lyp-synching performance of "She Wolf" and "Did it again" in Jimmy Kimmel Live? Jevitop (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel
Why did you remove the professional review by planetill.com.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Red links and attitude
Hello, this is a reply to your extremely rude undo of one of my previous edits to the article The Boy Who Knew Too Much.
JODI MARR IS A PAGE THAT DOES NOT EXIST!! stop linking it!!!!
As you’re clearly unaware of the concept of Wikipedia:Red_links please introduce yourself and then refrain from removing correct red links in the future. Also try and sort out your attitude towards fellow Wikipedia contributors. Thanks, Freshpop (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Using capital letters and a string of exclamation marks is really quite rude, and completely unnecessary. I’ve seen other people on your talk page who have had to clarify their own edits to you as you have wrongly presumed they’re wrong, mostly due to a lack of understanding on your part. You should presume that because I keep red linking Jodi Marr that it is my full intention to eventually create a Wikipedia article about her, and just because you don’t know who someone is doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an article about them. Thanks once again, Freshpop (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah I know you said sorry, I was just pointing out why it was rude. Yes I do have an idea about the what the discussion was about, by the same way you did; reading, and it does seem just jump on people's edits even if they're correct. Thanks for the sarcasm. Freshpop (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. When undoing or redoing an undo of an article, please state your reasons in the edit summary as full (and politely) as you can. I accept and apologise that my edits on The Boy Who Knew Too Much (album) were a mistake on my part, but if you had linked me to Wikipedia:Albums in your first edit then an edit war would have been avoided. Also, I can see from previous discussions on your talk page that users have been complaining about your attitude when writing reasons for an edit (for example, User: Freshpop's quite recent message), especially if they are an redo of your own edits which have been undone. I have to say, I do agree. Please try and keep Wikipedia a team working environment, be polite, and be respectful of other users. Thank you very much. Jonny (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Number of Edits
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. -Shadow (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Kylie Tour
Look at the tourbook setlist it clearly says "Burning Up/ Vogue", "Boombox/Can't Get You out Of My Head," etc...and where did you get this "Sex instrumental" from? It's called heart beat rock segue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAnjX2AAAsILecarlos (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank U!
I wrote the critical review section, thanx 4 your comment!! :D :P (MariAna MiMi)
- You are welcome. It was really well-written. Keep up the good work. Orane (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, I notice that you always sign your name with "(MariAna MiMi)". In order to sign properly, with the date and time etc, just write this:~~~~.
Thank you for your informative edit summaries around this article. Might I make a suggestion? If there is informative and cited material in an article that you feel is in the wrong part of an article, then it would be better to move that material to where you think it does go rather than simply deleting it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pointer to WP:ALBUMS guidance here. Wikipedia articles are works in progress: while we should strive to get them to a high standard of formatting, we should preserve useful content along the way. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE are key policy here; they are far more important than WP:ALBUMS. I will endeavour to improve the Reality Killed the Video Star article over time, in line with WP:ALBUMS guidance, but some information, be it incomplete or not formatted in a standard way, is more useful that none. It would be great, if you have the time, if you could re-work the material I've added to better fit WP:ALBUMS style. Bondegezou (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Invitation to discussion.
Dear user. I would like to invite you to the following discussion about the use of Physical and Digital album charts. Discussion here (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
ALL CAPS
Please refrain from ALL CAPS edit summaries as you did here. Seriously, it looks like shouting and helps no-one. If you have an issue with article sourcing it is best discussed on the relevant talk page before reverting. Pedro : Chat 21:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
If you continue to revert without engaging in discussion on the talk page of Rated R (Rihanna album) I will block you. Please stop, now, and engage in discussion. Pedro : Chat 21:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- LAtimes, Chicago Tribune, and USA Today have been added to the list for professional review sites. If that doesnt change anything w/putting the USA Today review in the infobox, then whatever. Dan56 (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop reverting me
Why you revert my edits in Reality Killed the Video Star? according to you, a famous singer that release an album and debuts at peaks at a # 160 is a success? nothing that I am editing is false or even a vandalism. you made a lot of mistakes, as I can see in your talk page. if you keep with your disruptive attitude to reverse without consensus, I will notify an administrator to block you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.211.214 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- and you need to see below in the table to learn the position of the album in the United States. and please leave your comments on talk pages, not in the edit summary and please use lowercase letters. you do not need to be rude.
WARNING
You have recently engaged in edit-warring on pages, including the Reality Killed the Video Star article, as well as showing incivility towards other users. Please familiarise yourself with rules regarding these matters at WP:EDITWAR and WP:CIVILITY. Considering that you have already been warned about this kind of behaviour recently, if you persist in this behaviour you will be blocked from editing. 80.47.92.139 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
SECOND WARNING
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Reality Killed the Video Star. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 80.47.139.130 (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Despite various warnings, in light of your continued edit-warring behaviour on this article, you have been reported for violation of WP:3RR. 80.47.79.135 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin Notes: Aside from the edit warrning and 3RR violation at this article, you were also given a final warning ([1]) by another admin for this same behaviour at another article. You must learn to use dispute resolution or face much longer blocks in future. Nja247 07:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I only tried to stop other IP adresses to change/delete sources and information; i contributed to the page more than anyone else, I believe there is no reason for this, and this does not encourage me to write anymore Wikipedia articles...
Decline reason:
You were asked to stop several times and kept edit warring. Please note that the three revert rule is enforced very strictly. If someone reverts your edit, begin a discussion on the talk page, as opposed to reverting back and forth. TNXMan 12:57, 2 December 2009 (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.
Orphaned non-free image File:Anastacia Defeated Promo Single3.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Anastacia Defeated Promo Single3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:I Want To Know What Love Is MC.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:I Want To Know What Love Is MC.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Reality Killed the Video Star. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 80.47.35.172 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
civility note
Hi- please drop the stick in regards to Reality Killed the Video Star. The tone your messages on Talk:Reality Killed the Video Star have taken show a serious issue with Wikipedia's civility policy. I'd strongly suggest refactoring them and/or apologizing to the IP and trying to constructively resolve your dispute. Finally, please read over WP:OWN. Cheers, tedder (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
your signature
BTW, I've noticed that your signature does not link to your user or talk pages. I suspect you've customized it to be this way. Wikipedia:SIG#Internal links says "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive."
Let me know if you need help fixing this. tedder (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
RE:
You just stay where they are called, because the conversation is not with you. Furthermore the AllMusic says that the album is R&B, not pop/R&B, do not be bias ... Vitorvicentevalente (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Final warning for disruption & Notice of temporary editing restriction
Rather than block you immediately for continued edit warring, I've felt you should get this a final warning to end the disruptive use of undo. It is upsetting that you continued editing in the same way that lead to you being blocked almost immediately after the article Reality Killed the Video Star had been un-protected. While I appreciate your use of the article's talk pages this time around, your attitude and tone has raised civility and ownership concerns (as noted above by notices from other admins). You must not abuse the revert tool any further, nor should you continue to discuss things on the article's talk page in a hostile manner. Otherwise, you will be blocked.
Editing restriction at Reality Killed the Video Star
Further, due to continued abuse of undo, you are restricted from its use on the article for one month. The only two exemptions to this restriction will be for cases of clear and unambiguous vandalism, or severe WP:BLP violations. The length of one month was selected as the previous two weeks full protection on the article didn't seem to deter this behaviour. The restriction will be enforced by a block of whatever period any admin who is notified of its breach determines to be appropriate. I don't want to block you, thus I hope this compromise is something you're able to abide by. NJA (t/c) 13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like some help with the User:Vitorvicentevalente. He keeps defending that the album's main genres are hiphop and rock, using one source for it (an IGN review), but most critics and album/music databases (ex. Metacritic, Allmusic) have it listed as either pop or R&B or both, only noting that it incorporates elements of hip hop & rock. I think we have an edit war going on, which I think is kinda fun (see our edit notes, funny stuff), but it is not constructive. What do u propose? Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
About the reviews box, is there a limit on reviews like b4 with a 10 review maximum? Dan56 (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
civility in edit summaries
I've asked you before, but please discontinue putting abusive comments in your edit summaries, which you've done as recently as three hours ago ([2], [3]). Please remain calm with your editsummaries and talk page comments going forward. Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
December 2009
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 09:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Admin notes: As noted directly above, admin tedder issued another civility warning, and had apparently missed my final warning given just yesterday. You are blocked as you were told clearly to stop disrupting Wikipedia by reverting and by editing in a hostile manner that causes civility issues and demonstrates article ownership by you. Also, you already violated your editing restriction by re-adding the billboard content. As you're under an editing restriction, you should be discussing things on the talk pages first before reverting. You must take these issues seriously or your next blocks will last for weeks, if not longer. NJA (t/c) 10:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Also, on your talk page alone, I count 9 warnings about edit warring and misuse of revert; 5 on etiquette and civility; and 3 specifically on reverting and impolite edit summaries. Also I notice a pattern of you referring to others' edits as vandalism to excuse your behaviour. That type of behaviour is tendentious, and it needs to stop. Unfortunately without some major adjustments by you, I do not believe this will be your last block. NJA (t/c) 10:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How do you want me to stop IP adresses to vandalize Wikipedia without undoing their edits? why am I the one blocked and not them, when the only thing I do is to contribute to the pages!? this is really illogical don't you think? The Billboard source was perfectly good that's why i added it back! as you might see i only use good sources for every article i edit! also the comments on my page many were left by IP adresses, can't u see? and in most cases i was right & they were wrong
Decline reason:
Even if you are right and they are wrong, that is not a justification for either incivility or edit warring. Sandstein 10:28, 19 December 2009 (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.
- MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 78.97.164.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MariAna Mimi". The reason given for MariAna Mimi's block is: "Disruptive editing: continued WP:CIVIL problems and revert
Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I want 2 move this article to Bad Habits (song), right now a redirect page to the song's album. How can I do dat? Dan56 (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Edit Warring (December 29, 2009)
After being blocked already twice this month, and being told you cannot use "revert" on the article for a period of one month, you have once again broken the 3RR on the article Reality Killed The Video Star and you will be reported.80.47.9.124 (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)- MariAna Mimi, please take this seriously. You may be banned from editing certain articles and/or types of articles, including Reality Killed The Video Star. tedder (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I just think that this is not right at all...I hope that the block period will be reduced.The IP user did not talk about his/her edits before reverting, adding information. The user added more reviews to the infobox as well as adding unsourced info at the review section. Do you believe that this is right? I've been editing Wiki for quite some time and still i get blocked by some Ip user who has editied Wiki for not more than 4 hours and seems to be more concerned to block me insted of editing the article.People who contribute to Wiki get blocked while others who just come to mess things up continue to do what they want...I hope that you also see that i was reported by IP adresses who all seem to be fixated on the same idea of adding a specific review to the page, don't you think that's really strange??Anyway i hope that you reconsider the time period. Thank U!
Decline reason:
You do not own those articles. Edit warring is not permissible unless you are reverting pure vandalism. Until you are willing to acknowledge and abide by that, you can expect to keep getting blocked when you edit war. In the future, consider pursuing dispute resolution instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (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.
This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.
January 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Notes: User continues to revert and edit in an un-collaborative manner by not using talk pages to reach consensus. Despite multiple warnings and blocks they have yet to acknowledge the disruption, nor stop it. See this final warning and restriction that's been recently breached by reverting on the article. NJA (t/c) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
January 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Notes: User continues to revert and edit in an un-collaborative manner by not using talk pages to reach consensus. Despite multiple warnings and blocks they have yet to acknowledge the disruption, nor stop it. See this final warning and restriction that's been recently breached by reverting on the article. NJA (t/c) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is stupid & illogical at the same time! I did not undo anything on the Reality Killed the Video Star page!!!! I only made good contributions to the article!!! am I supposed to discuss every single small edit that i make to the article on the talk page?? in your opinion? there was nothing to discuss and every edit I made only had a POSITIVE effect on the article!! as it was well sourced and according to Wikipedia rules! which means that i did not break any violation! this block is not justified at all and only makes me think that this administrator has something against me....?!
Decline reason:
I'm sorry, but blaming other editors will not get your block lifted. Discuss your behavior, why you were blocked, and how you will change your behavior to avoid being blocked in the future. TNXMan 15:41, 17 January 2010 (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.
MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I still can't understand why i was blocked and what I did wrong. My only intention is to contribute to the Reality Killed the Video Star page in a positive way. I do not consider the page/or the article to be "mine" anyone can edit the page as long as they give a reliable source, I did not revert any edits, I did not break any Wikipedia rules, I was not rude. I'm sorry if i did something wrong but i can't see the reason behind this block
Decline reason:
If you still don't understand why edit warring, blanking content, and not discussing matters on talk pages is not the right approach, then there is no compelling reason to even consider unblocking you. Try reading WP:BRD and WP:3RR, that may help you understand the problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (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.
Apparently you're unclear of the issue (despite numerous removed notices and warnings on this page). To be clear, the problem is that you continue to remove information from the article without discussion on the article's talk page. Usually boldly editing Wikipedia is okay, however you've been doing this in disruptive manner that has lead to edit warring in the past, established you as taking ownership of the article, and it got to the point that an editing restriction was placed upon your edits to the article. Overall the behaviour is demonstrative of someone editing in an un-collaborative way, when in fact Wikipedia is a collaborative project. As a recent example, at the end of your last block by admin Tedder (for edit warring and article ownership), you made this edit with the edit summary of: 'reverted some edits, will add info back'. However you didn't really add it back, but rather selectively added bits to your liking, and explained some of your reasoning in subsequent edit summaries. Note that edit summaries are not a substitute for the talk page, particularly as you're on an editing restriction! The issue here is not with me, but with your editing tendencies, which drastically need to change. NJA (t/c) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)