User talk:Rihannano1fan

Welcome!

Hello, Rihannano1fan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Double Dares

A tag has been placed on Double Dares, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Agathoclea (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaking In Ben

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sneaking In Ben, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0935909. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cam's First Visit

A tag has been placed on Cam's First Visit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. eaolson (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Cam's First Visit

A tag has been placed on Cam's First Visit, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cam's First Visit

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cam's First Visit, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Horrid Henry Double Trouble DVD"

A page you created, Horrid Henry Double Trouble DVD, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is obvious advertising or promotional material.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Avnjay^Talk 12:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Horrid Henry Double Trouble DVD

A tag has been placed on Horrid Henry Double Trouble DVD, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of episodes!

Hi there - if you're creating articles on separate episodes of a TV program you should note that usually it is Wikipedia policy to put all the information in a single article - like this one. There are some TV programmes where episodes have separate articles, but they are generally the more well-known series that meet our notability policies more easily. Thanks! Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of "Horrid Henry Episodes"

A page you created, Horrid Henry Episodes, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. PeterCantropus (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 4th season

Hi! You keep trying to create articles about the 4th season of Doctor Who. The reason that they keep being redirected is that an article on this subject already exists - Doctor Who (series 4) - so you may want to edit that instead - remembering to check your spelling and grammar and to provide reliable sources for all the things you write about. Thanks. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Now you're creating empty articles with titles like "Episode 1 - Partners In Crime - Broadcast On 5th April 2008". This also already exists: Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). Please can you stop creating new articles until you've done a full search to see if they already exist? Thanks. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Doctor Who (series 4). 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. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated blanking of Doctor Who (series 4). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Edokter • Talk • 12:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Horrid Henry (TV Series). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ugly Betty Season 4

I have nominated Ugly Betty Season 4, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugly Betty Season 4. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created: Ugly Betty Season 4 may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ugly Betty Season 4.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted {{Findsources3}}:

Find sources for Ugly Betty Season 4: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:

1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.

2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)

3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.

4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If your page is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Fourth Album (Rihanna)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Fourth Album (Rihanna), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Album (Rihanna). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Amalthea 18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Rihanna, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Σ xplicit 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Free to a redirect

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with Free, have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Free (Dani Harmer song)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Free (Dani Harmer song), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No independent sources confirm this other than its release on YouTube and not sure if notability inherits this far.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Jasmina.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Jasmina.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Rihanna. 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. — Σxplicit 18:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Friend, you do not own copyrights to any of the images you uploaded recently, although you claimed to release them under CC-BY. I'll have to delete most, if not all of them, and please, take great care in the future when you upload images: If you find an image on the web, you have to assume that it can't be used on Wikipedia. Only if it is explicitly released by the author under a free license or into the public domain you can consider it, and then you still have to try and check if that licensing is genuine.
If you have questions about that, feel free to ask, and you might want to run your next couple of uploads by me or by anyone at WP:MCQ.
Amalthea 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you have overwritten files at File:Shontelle.jpg and File:Young.jpg, which led to incorrect pictures being displayed at the respective articles. If you get a warning that there already is an image of that name, please choose another name unless you really are uploading a new version of the same image. Amalthea 14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Alexking.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alexking.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --magnius (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Leona Lewis 023.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leona Lewis 023.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --magnius (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Amelle.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amelle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --magnius (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:The satus.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:The satus.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. magnius (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continued violation of copyright policy despite prior notice. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Amalthea 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna discography

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Rihanna discography, you will be blocked from editing. - eo (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image uploads

Hello
I noticed you uploaded File:Rihannaforwikipedia.jpg, with a claim that it was licensed as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Where can I verify that? I find that rather unlikely since it's apparently a magazine cover image.
Amalthea 11:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANNOYED!!

i am uploading things onto Rihanna page and someone keeps deleting it even though it is clearly true and i have provided references. i added a new section because the one above says "2007-2009: Good Girl Gone Bad and Domestic Violence Case." And that has now finished and people are adding things about Run This Town which has nothing to do with good girl gone bad or the domestic violence case. Also someone has put that her album is due out 2010 when it isnt it is due out in November 2009 and the also put that Rihanna and Lady GaGa did a song called Silly Boy which has now been realised to be by Eva Simons I am very annoyed because i want to edit things that are true and no one is letting me!

huh that's why many people are boycotting wikipedia and don't view it as a so called "reliable source" and many many users r retiring and were retired from this site with a lot of furiousness and left a lot of people regretful. if u have anything to say to me come to my talk page. -peace to ya JuventusGamer (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?

I can't find any time that I have accused you of vandalism. Please point it out to me. Please do not edit my user page again: the talk page is where discussions belong.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i am sorry it is just annoying when it takes me ages to do something and someone deletes it. sorry

It would go easier on you if you didn't waste your time writing articles that are guaranteed to be deleted. If an album hasn't got a title, tracklist, and release date, there's about a 99% chance that it will be deleted. In the case of Rihanna's fourth album, it has already been deleted about ten times, so it is guaranteed it will be deleted, because a reposting of a deleted article is deleted automatically.—Kww(talk) 16:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay that i have put a new section on Rihanna then 'Fourth Album' because all of that is true and more information is becoming available and i will put it on there once it becomes available?

Well-sourced information can always be added to articles. Other editors will edit it, though, so be sure what you add is sourced to reliable sources.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much, i am very sorry for the way i spoke to you earlier From now on i will edit carefully with well reliable sources

I've deleted the newest incarnation of the "Rihanna fourth album" article again. As Kww says, this topic has been under discussion a number of times, and has been deleted under various names for over 12 months. The most recent discussion seems to have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Album (Rihanna), about an article that was also created by you.
Adding the sourced information into the Rihanna article is the way to go until there is at least an officially confirmed title of the album.
Also, shopping sites aren't reliable sources. Release dates in particular are very often pure guesswork filled in by the shopping site, and thus are usually wrong and can't be trusted unless backed up by a proper WP:RS. Don't use them, and don't get your hopes up, I'd be surprised if the album were released November 23.
Amalthea 20:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANNOYED!!: respond

wow man I said that in the support of you but in a circuitous way but unfortunately you didn't get it. My point was that one of Wikipedia's main weaknesses which really needs to be rewritten completely is many of its limiter rules in many fields including the ones you mentioned. JuventusGamer (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with un-named, un-confirmed, un-sourced Rihanna album links please.

[2]
[3]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. - eo (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is not named, it has been confirmed by Play.com and Amazon.co.uk that it will be released in November 2009 so stop accusing me of vandalising. I'm not the only one editing it so maybe you need to look at yourself and see that it does need editing!

If I may, release dates proclaimed by shops are not at all reliable, even if several of them have the same one. As I've said before somewhere, Amazon seems to be pulling release dates out of hats if they don't have a confirmed one (it's quite possibly a sale tactic), they aren't at all reliable in that regard. Unless it has been officially announced, just don't add it. No, not even a year. For two examples, Paris Hilton's second album or Toni Braxton's next album have been announced in some blogs for years, yet they are still not out, and we've again and again claimed years of release and album titles for those upcoming albums in our articles that turned out to be incorrect. Amazon initially claimed a release date of somewhere in 2004, I believe, for A Dance with Dragons, and has been pushing it forward in 6 or 12 month intervals since. The book is still not out.
And since we've talked a couple of times before about adding speculative information to Wikipedia, it is certainly becoming disruptive, yes. Just stick to what reliable sources say and all is well. We should always prefer to leave out information than to add incorrect information, Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. Amalthea 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the above did you not understand? Shopping sites can't be used as sources for release dates, period. They didn't even agree on one! Amalthea 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is quite enough. No official release date has been given, shop sites aren't reliable sources for release dates, and the three you used as references don't even agree on one! If you disagree, feel very free to come to Talk:Rihanna and make your case. Do not add it again to the article without a highly reliable source confirming it.
Amalthea 10:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this: No, nobody has confirmed anything. The message they gave on her official communication outlets is cryptic and brief, intentionally so I presume, but only says "The Wait Is Ova. Nov 23 09". There is much speculation about it in reliable sources, but nothing "confirmed". Sources speculate that it is probably an album release date. Some sources wonder if the title is related to the album title. No reliable source, be it primary or secondary, confirms it. You are, again, violating Wikipedia's core policy of Verifiability. Numerous editors have stressed the importance of that multiple times, verifiability is far more important than being the first to guess something correctly. If you disagree, I implore you to come to Talk:Rihanna and make your case.
My patience is exhausted though. If you can't even attempt to edit within policy, you will soon not be able to edit anymore at all. I will certainly not come here yet another time with yet another explanation for you to ignore.
Amalthea 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Rihanna. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This is getting ridiculous. After being warned several times before by at least 2 different editors, you went ahead and made the same unreliable edits as you have been trying to do for a while. Please stop. Ccrashh (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but other people have edited it as well and her new single is being released any minute now and her album hs been confirmed for November by over 5 websites! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihannano1fan (talk • contribs) 11:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those "other people" are hardly reliable wikipedia editors. The ones removing your edits are. You should not use unreliable sources for this kind of information...this is something that people have mentioned to you before. Also, please note how I use colons to indent comments on discussion pages and how I use four tildes (~) to sign my comment. 207.236.147.118 (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

removing CSD tags

Do not remove CSD tags from articles that you have created. CSD tags should only be removed by other editors.—Kww(talk) 15:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove CSD tags from articles that you have created. Doing so is considered disruptive editing, and will result in you being blocked from editing.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for vandalism, disruption, ignoring talk page communication, adding unsourced info to articles, uploading copyrighted images, removing tags. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

- eo (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2009 (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).

Rihannano1fan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

why? i am going to complain because i have provided reliable sources and correct information. it actually annoys me when people post incorrect things! I'm being treated like a criminal: "vandalism"! How, i posted about Rihanna's new album, oh and it's funny when someone else edits and changes the subtitle of her fourth album, oh you keep it! it's actually discrimination and i am fed up with it. all i want to do is add things that are true!

Decline reason:

My apologies if you were misinformed, but information only needs to be verifiable to be included at Wikipedia. The information you've repeatedly posted may be true, or it may not - I don't know. The issue is that the sources you used (Amazon, etc) to show that it is true aren't reliable sources. If the artist makes an announcement, you have an offical record that on such-and-such a date, they said X. If Amazon posts a release date, they can change it at will - and nothing prevents them from posting an incorrect date to drum up pre-sales. So we can't use online retailers as a source. You were told this repeatedly, but instead of discussing it with other editors, you simply continued to add it to the article, and that's considered disruptive. Your response, when told that this was disruptive, was essentially "Nuh-uh", which isn't acceptable, either. Your interest in posting information about Rhianna is admirable, but you must do it within our policies, or you'll find your experience here to be unfulfilling. When your block expires after next week, please bear in mind that we're supposed to be working together to improve the articles; so far, you haven't, and you need to. Request declined. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:02, 19 October 2009 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: See User talk:Ericorbit#Rihannano1fan for recent incidents following the above collection of final warnings that lead to this block. Amalthea 16:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been blocked for nearly 2 years now but am still apparently linked to a school addres that other members of my old school use still for vandalism, I dont. I go to college now. I have apologized for my past edits. Please may I be unblocked please, i have served my time. Rihannano1fan (talk) 23:12, 11 February

Your block was only for two weeks and expired in November 2009, you should be able to edit again. Please try to avoid the kind of edits that were found to be problematic though.
Amalthea 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanjs for replying. I have been blocked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HJ_Mitchell for the IP adress that was linked to my old school that is linked to my home computer. Can you please sort this out. Thankyou. Rihannano1fan (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I think it's because you evaded that two-week block which led to escalating IP blocks.
It appears that you were given a second change with the Iluvrihanna24 account about 18 months ago. Why didn't that work out, in your opinion, and why do you think it will work better this time? Amalthea 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC

Once again, thanks for replying I have had no answer in months. In answer to your questions, it didnt work out because i was warned to use references and i accidentally forgot to put one in once after. I did apologise but i was not accepted again. I took full resposibilty but was never allowed back. After that I swear to you the date expired and I was able to edit again and then I was blocked for no reason. They said i was not allowed to edit again but then how would I of edited? I served my time but then was given so many more months afterwards for one tiny mistake. Anyway, that was the past, this is now. I have totally learned my lesson and really want to get back into editing again as I think i add a great contribution and I have seen things for months that still need updating and grammatical errors that make pages look really unproffesional and I think I can bring this to wikipedia! Please, I have served well over my time and really want to come back. Once again thankyou for listening to me! Xxxxxx Rihannano1fan (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now that you had no reply in two hours you decided to evade the block again with User:PhoenixJHudson? Man, you really make it difficult to help you. Amalthea 11:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rabbit Test (Ugly Betty)

The article Rabbit Test (Ugly Betty) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability in question since '14.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rabbit Test (Ugly Betty)

The article Rabbit Test (Ugly Betty) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]