User talk:UxUmbrella

Welcome!

Hello, UxUmbrella, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Umbrella (music video), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella (song)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve the site with your edit to Umbrella (music video), as we really appreciate your participation. However, the edit had to be reverted for the following reasons:

Wikipedia cannot accept uncited synthesis, or material which is supported only by primary sources, as this violates Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, No Original Research, and synthesis. Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. With regard to material about the content of narrative works that is evaluative, analytical or interpretive, the source must be a secondary source, and the analysis must be derived from that source. Editors cannot add their own analyses to articles, because that is original research, nor can editors merely cite the work in question for anything other than descriptions of its content or credits, because that is synthesis, which is a form of original research.
In a similar vein, editors should not add their own opinions to articles, as you did when you remarked that elements of the video were "beautiful", "sexy" or "effective".

Other problems with this material that did not go directly to its removal, but which bear mention for future reference to writing good articles include the following:

Material in Wikipedia articles must be written in a formal tone, and therefore should be written in the third person, and not in the second person. This means that the text should not address the reader info "In this captures 'you can see Rihanna's..."
Material in Wikipedia articles needs to be written in coherent sentences, with proper grammar. "In this captures..." and "In general video represents.." are not proper grammar, and the passages "In some scenes using visual effects." and "Especially B/W scene when Rihanna fully nude (only with silver paint) into a silver pyramid (tetrahedron)." are not complete sentences. Sentences must have a subject and a predicate.
As indicated by WP:SECTIONHEAD, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized in section headings, and headings should not contain citations or external links. It is also not a good idea to explicitly indicate the length of a section in its heading with comments like "(Brief)", since it is not the convention on Wikipedia, unnecessary, given that the reader can already gauge a section's length at a glance, and the length of a section may change as others edit it.
Terms should not formatted in boldface with a legitimate reason, such as the presentation of the article's name in the Lead section, the name of cast members in a production's cast list, etc.

If you ever have any other questions or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that I've single-handedly written four articles that have achieved Good article status, whereas you can't even compose coherent sentences, the criterion by which you apparently deem articles to be "shit" don't seem to carry much weight with the rest of the editing community here. I would suggest you find a hobby that doesn't require coherent writing, or which doesn't have a civility policy as Wikipedia does, since you seem incapable of exhibiting neither. Take care. 96.234.44.36 (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna - Umbrella (First Personality).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna - Umbrella (First Personality).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna - Umbrella (Second Personality).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna - Umbrella (Second Personality).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pour It Up, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Those genres are not sourced. Please use reliable sources to back up your edits. In the mean time, they have been reverted. — ₳aron 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella (music video) merger

There was a discussion for merging the article to Umbrella (song) at Talk:Umbrella_(song)#Proposed_merge_with_Umbrella_.28music_video.29, which I closed as Merge because there were four people with compelling arguments that the article should be merged versus zero people who thought it should not be merged. The discussion had been open for two months and could have been closed by anyone, since there was no opposing opinion. Given the fact you have edited both articles makes me think you were aware of the discussion, but chose not to participate. Besides the too long quotes in the music video article, everything was already covered in the song article, so there was actually nothing to merge over there and the music video link was turned into a redirect to the song article. I saw that reverted the entire discussion, [1], but you cannot remove talk page discussions simply because you do not like them, so I will revert that discussion removal.

By reverting my actions with an edit summary of "Restored" without further explanation, let alone any talk page discussion or discussion with me, nine minutes after I merged the article, makes me think this is simply a case of WP:ILIKEIT and you have nothing to refute the consensus for the article to be merged. Per WP:MERGE, "If a page gets merged, and someone later objects, then a new discussion can be held. Mergers can be easily reversed if a consensus against the merger is formed shortly after the merger was performed." Your next step is to start a new discussion to see if a consensus can be formed shortly against having the merge performed, so per the quote above, I am going to revert your edit. You need to start a discussion to overturn the consensus and if you continue to revert it will probably be seen as nothing more than WP:EDITWARRING and will probably lead to your being blocked. Aspects (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, your BOLD edits were reverted, and a discussion has been started at the talk page. You need to discuss the issue, instead of reverting, especially when you give no explanation why you made your edits, and have a consensus formed by the editors. If you continue to revert to your preferred version, you could be blocked for WP:EDITWARRING. Neither of these two articles are yours and yet you act like you WP:OWN them. Other editors are able to make changes and revert some of your changes. You need to be able to discuss changes or you risk being blocked. Aspects (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence in the discussion about not wanting to lose information from the music video and the edit warring that you did both there and at the song article, shows that you think you WP:OWN the article and do not have to listen to anyone else. If you keep up this opinion at Wikipedia, it will ultimately lead to you being blocked from editing. I strongly suspect that two new IP addresses, User:95.73.219.0 and User:95.73.223.209 that just popped up to edit war back to your preferred version. The first IP address had never edited before, came in nine minutes to undue my edit with an edit summary of "Restored" just like you did in the music video article. The second IP address geolocates to the same area as the first, has never edited before, undid my edits and even edited Princess of China that you just started editing two days ago. This seems like a WP:QUACK case to me and if it is you, you need to only edit from your login account because you could be blocked for using WP:SOCKPUPPETS to either get around WP:3RR/edit warring or to make it seem like more people are backing your opinion. Aspects (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna - Umbrella (First Personality).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna - Umbrella (First Personality).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna - Umbrella (Second Personality).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna - Umbrella (Second Personality).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Rihanna in silver paint).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Rihanna in silver paint).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Scene with water).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Scene with water).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Rihanna holding award and Chris Applebaum at MTV VMA 2007.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna holding award and Chris Applebaum at MTV VMA 2007.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Chase (talk / contribs) 15:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account

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).

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

Request reason:

Please understand me. I later make some changes in page “Umbrella (song)”: Add EL to “Credits”, Add subsections to “Music Video” section, add pictures. More later (3 weeks ago) I added 2 interviews (several sentences from interviews). But today this motherf***ing human (Chasewc91), who earlier spoil my article “Umbrella (music video)” and who being discussion about merging with song article, simply undid sequence of 4 my changes and remove interviews, that I added early. After all it I hate him! Υμβρελλα (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry that a trivial content dispute on a website is enough for you to "hate" people enough to resort to personal attacks. Your inability to control your anger is reason enough to make this a flawed unblock request. You have also not accounted for how you will handle your edit warring. Kuru (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2014 (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.

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna holding award and Chris Applebaum at MTV VMA 2007.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna holding award and Chris Applebaum at MTV VMA 2007.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account

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).

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

Request reason:

Wat Disruptive editing!??? Honestly, I only improving Wikipedia. U better look what doing Chasewc91! This fucking human 3 times revert my changes (Total: 5 history states, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Umbrella_(song)&action=history ) He also spoiled my article (“Umbrella (music video)”) and being discussion to megre with song article. And he disturb me early. U BETTER BLOCK HIM, THAN ME!!! Υμβρελλα (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per 331dot below. Peridon (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2014 (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.

Using personal attacks and criticizing the actions of others instead of discussing your own action are a sure fire way to remain blocked. Please see the appeal guide for more information. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated by the admin in their edit summary, unblock requests cannot be removed per WP:REMOVE. The admin's statement references my comment above, which should not be removed either. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UxUmbrella, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

IPadPerson (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Umbrella (song). IPadPerson (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Rihanna in silver paint).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Rihanna in silver paint).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Screen shot from Umbrella (music video).jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Screen shot from Umbrella (music video).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “Rehab” (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “Rehab” (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Umbrella (song). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to discuss with users who disagree with my changes here (see last 2 lines). They don't responded me. ((( Υμβρελλα (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They probably haven't responded (assuming they aren't off doing something else) because little has changed between your original edits and your more recent ones. You don't seem to be getting what people are telling you, or at least it is not reflected in your edits. I posted this notice because you reverted the removal of your changes; given that your changes were controversial you must obtain a consensus for them. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Rihanna in silver paint).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna on the set of “Umbrella” music video (Rihanna in silver paint).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “Unfaithful” (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “Unfaithful” (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Umbrella (song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IPadPerson (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the FUCK!!! I improving article! Besides string: “Music video was edited by Nabil Mechi from Murex, who previously edited videos for Rihanna's single “S.O.S.”.” (If you even think that is promotion), I added other strings and 1 image. What's wrong???! Υμβρελλα (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Umbrella (song). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Wifione ^Message 18:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account

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).

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

Request reason:

Please understand me. I've been in very difficult situation. Honestly, I only want to HELP project, never harm. On page Umbrella (song) I just want to make following changes: first part, second part. And when I done these changes I encountered resistence from other editors (Chasewc91, Aspects, Binksternet, 331dot, IPadPerson, Tomica). Please don't think that I never listen others and don't think that I always right and others always wrong. I FIVE times (please think in this number) started discussions about my changes on article's talk page, user's talk page and on my talk page to know why they reverting my changes. As result, I got only ONE reply from Chasewc91 with not full answer. I TWO times asked Tomica with same question and again don't got answer. And last, I replied IPadPerson's warning and again don't got answer. Yes, I violate WP:3RR but they, absolutely don't left me a change. I've been in hopeless situation: If I continue perform my changes ― It's edit warring, If I try to discuss ― I don't get an answer. I really HATE these people cuz' they only reverting my changes, writing warnings to my talk page, sending abuse to notification board and ABSOLUTELY DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS! (I can't writing it without caps).
P.S.: I'm very huge fan of Rihanna, her arts and especially of her masterpiece song/video “Umbrella”. I may say that this song it's meaning of my life. Therefore I want to HELP project by editing this and other articles. Υμβρελλα (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:44, 22 November 2014 (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.

As I've said above, using personal attacks against other editors (i.e. "I really hate these people") and discussing others' behavior instead of your own are sure fire ways to remain blocked. I suggest you read this page for more information. You don't address what you have done wrong and how you will change, and in fact admit that you have violated 3RR- which is never justifiable with others' behavior. No one forces you to hit the undo link. I would also submit that if this song is "the meaning of your life" that you are too close to this subject to be able to edit about it objectively (see WP:NPOV). You have been told what the issues are in edit summaries and on the page; there is no need to continually repeat one's self. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“I really hate these people” ― It's NOT personal attack, it's just my relation to them. It's not offensive behavior.
“No one forces you to hit the undo link” ― That you think if others reverting controversial changes and don't want to discuss it ― it means that user in this situation must do nothing and agree with them???
About my last lines: that this song it's meaning of my life it absolutely don't means that I will using adoring tone or something like this in articles. Υμβρελλα (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you were told that other users hated you, would you not be offended? It certainly is a personal attack.
If you don't like your edits being reverted, and are unsatisfied with explanations given to you, there are processes available to you which you have not exercised. Edit warring does not help your cause, no matter how right you are or how justified you feel. You can only control your own behavior and not that of others.
I don't know if it means that or not, but your closeness to this subject seems to be affecting the manner in which you edit.

Again, you need to address your own behavior, and not that of others, if you want to be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first, they offended me so many times (especially: Chasewc91) and only now I wrote that I hate them. They deserves it word!
Early I called him as bi*ch, cuz' I really hate people, who reverts/remove mine (and not even mine) changes, who don't comment own edits (in case of revert/remove, systematically) and who don't want to discuss.
I wrote, I FIVE TIMES tried to know answer to my question (like “So why you dislike my changes???”) and I wrote list of my changes to know opinion on which item. Maybe you suggest me to try 1000000000000 times :-D ? I EVEN wrote in description of my controversial edit following message: “IF ANYONE THINK THAT MY CHANGES IS INAPPROPRIATE: DO NOT REVERT; EXPLAIN YOUR OPINION HERE”. But “VERY VERY VERY SMART” user Tomica simple reverted my edit, don't left a description to own edit, and don't read (or maybe ignore) my message. Q: AS I CAN DISCUSS WITH PEOPLE LIKE HE???
…
You can believe me. I know rules of encyclopedia. Υμβρελλα (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are not getting what you are being told, since you are still talking about the behavior of others and not your own, so I have nothing further to say. You can only control your behavior- and until you address that it is unlikely you will be unblocked. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from Umbrella (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from Umbrella (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “Can't Remember To Forget You” (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “Can't Remember To Forget You” (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “Pon De Replay” (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “Pon De Replay” (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “S.O.S. (Rescue Me)” (Nike version) (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “S.O.S. (Rescue Me)” (Nike version) (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “S.O.S. (Rescue Me)” (official music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “S.O.S. (Rescue Me)” (official music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 02:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is your final chance.--5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock my account

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).

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

Request reason:

First, since my last block I only 1 time edit Umbrella (song) article (I added screen capture in “Music video” section) and I talk with Binksternet. WHAT'S WRONG I'VE DONE??? IT'S MISTAKE!!! Second, Disruptive edit ― is offense for me! I only improving Wikipedia. Third, even if my changes is controversial it absolutely don't means that it's disruptive edit. For more info you can see my prev unblock request. Υμβρελλα (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In your unblock request, you're using all capitals, which seems to indicate that you're shouting, and you're also being argumentative. In this context, I'm dclining your request to be unblocked, and revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (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.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. PhilKnight (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Your sockpuppetry has, unsurprisingly, fooled no one. Considering you have been blocked multiple times for disruptive behavior and have been given only one more chance before your main account is blocked indefinitely, it's a miracle that you weren't indef-blocked immediately, which is typically what happens to those who abuse multiple accounts. I would highly advise you wait out your current block, not make any further changes to Umbrella (song) without gaining consensus on the article's talk page, and edit without making personal attacks against other users (saying you hate them, using profane slurs, etc.).

Since many editors have disagreed with your edits and offered explanations for why they do, my best advice for you would be to seek an RFC so that uninvolved editors may offer their opinion. If more users disagree with your changes, I would simply give it up. It's not worth losing your editing privileges forever, especially if you would like to make other changes to Rihanna-related articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are so e… people, so evil to me…

I admit, I deserved only 1st block. For personal attack. But in all succeeding blocks been from WP:EDITWARRING / WP:3RR / WP:DISRUPTIVE.
1. My edit is only “controversial”, NOT “disruptive”. People, how think that my edit is disruptive ― that are really f***ing idiots! In which situations people should discuss, but you absolutely didn't wanna to do this.
2. You better instead idiotic reverts (1 time after 1 of my edit I even wrote: “IF ANYONE THINK THAT MY CHANGES IS INAPPROPRIATE: DO NOT REVERT; EXPLAIN YOUR OPINION HERE”, but “VERY VERY VERY” SMART user Tomica simple ignore & revert) without good explanations, notifications like this: “This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Umbrella (song)” and writing aboses to admins, you better edit Gaga or non Gaga-relatd articles, or simple good contributions. I know about this song much better than all you.
Your WP:SPI is TOP of idiocy! Because visiting site (in this case Wikipedia) without login absolutely is not violation and I have Internet connection with dynamic IP routing i.e. I have a new IP address everyday. Therefore you saw so many IPs. :-D
I sometime uses visiting site as guest for WP:BE. Yes, but your behavior forced me to do this. I SO MANY TIMES (you phrase “offered explanations for why they do” is lies!) I trying many times to dispute resolve with you, but if I gived answers than that answers been so poor. And especially users (Tomika & Binksternet) even does't want to talk with me, when I show 2 comparisons (edit (1), edit (2)) Seems link that my edits viollate 100500 rules & terms of Wikipedia so it don't need to explain.
Edit warring… I think that you edit warred too so you deserves block (at lest 1 month)
Those admins who revokes access to my talk page deserved a special place in hell!!!
If you have honesty, you will write detailed explanation of my edits. If brief: edit (1): section “Rihanna Interviews” (You deleted this absolutely without only explanation) (It's NOT my words, it's only her words), images in “Music video” section (I think that 2 image is absolutely appropriate, passes WP:NFCC), Awards table in “Music video” section (I think that this table should be in this section cuz' video have 4 win / 14 nomination. Pls, think in this numbers!), ELs in credits (I 1 time saw reply that 1 of my link is broken. I remove broken link, BUT other users will removing all links…), last edit: edit (2): I think that all my citation is appropriate. Υμβρελλα (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If any of the above wall of text was supposed to help yourself, you are sadly mistaken. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly fact, that Wikipedia have so many idiots, that only knows how to revert and don't know how to discuss, especially explain their reverts. Υμβρελλα (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've had enough chances; the 3RR at Rihanna videography so soon after returning from your previous block leaves me little choice but to place an indefinite block. You will need to articulate your understanding of why you were blocked, and how you will change for this to be removed. Please note that, as before, disruptive unblock requests or personal attacks on this talk page will very quickly lead to the removal of your ability to edit here. Kuru (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unklock my account

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).

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

Request reason:

I only wanted to IMPROVE project, never harm! Last time we only arguing who is director of music video “Pour It Up”. And we for it giving a block!??? If it's right that you really sick. Or I'll always doing bad thinks? Or maybe you suggest me to surrender in similay situations? REMEMBER: I'M NOT FROM PEOPLE WHO SURRENDER!!! If you again revoke access to my talk page than I wish all you to burn in hell. btw, please see my prev. unblock requests. Υμβρελλα (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No need to surrender, we would not ask that. Just move along to another website please as the internet is very large. The content of your unblock request does not address the reason for your block. I don't believe in hell. For abusing the unblock template I have removed your talk page privileges. Any further unblock request can be made at WP:UTRS. Chillum 20:36, 18 January 2015 (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.

UxUmbrella, as you don't seem to communicate in well-enough English to understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies (which is apparent from your numerous blocks / denied unblock requests), I would offer a friendly suggestion to perhaps try editing the Russian Wikipedia or the Simple English Wikipedia and learn the guidelines there. Unless you can learn from your past mistakes, which - judging from your continued abuse of unblock requests - seems incredibly unlikely, you will probably not be welcome on English Wikipedia any further. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

> offer a friendly suggestion to perhaps try editing the Russian Wikipedia And thank you very much... As a summary of responses, ruWiki cannot take any actions for a block at enWiki moreover the block rationally seems logical and facts supported. --Neolexx (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Screen shot from “The Monster” (music video).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screen shot from “The Monster” (music video).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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Divatox In Movie.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Divatox In Movie.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]