User talk:Within a dream

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (U.S.), 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. - eo (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alejandro (song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 00:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of number-one albums from the 2010s (UK). 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. - eo (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Take It Off (song). 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. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Lady Gaga Disco Heaven. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Christian75 (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Lady Gaga Disco Heaven, you may be blocked from editing. Blanking pages does NOT delete them, Admins must do so. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Take It Off (song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
This is the last warning i will issue. Stop removing the cover, source one confirmed its the cover and source two confirming its the cover. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Take It Off (song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Stop with your disruptive editing. Edit/Change/Do Anything to the cover again or add things like "no cover has been released" to the article you will be blocked from editing. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put It in a Love Song

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. Earlier today you preceeded to edit "Put It in a Love Song" in an inappropriate way. You added a massive section of unsourced, unpublished and originally researched information. None of that information was sourced and even if it was, the quality of the prose was terrible. Overall that whole selection of edits you made to the article were not acceptable and you topped it of by not using edit summaries. Overall it was not far from being disgraceful. I'm sorry but maybe you should ask yourself why you choose to edit on wikipedia because currently an edit like that is defematory and harmful to the artists involved. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By editing the section your edits are in no way any more helpful than the other person who added the information. If this is the case I'm sorry. In future do not swear on my user page. It is not WP:CIVIL. ---- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga discography

Please see the talk page of this article, consensus is currently for keeping "Chillin" listed with every other single per FL-class discographies such as Madonna singles discography and Taylor Swift discography. Gaga only has one featured single, therefore it's unnecessary to split a different table. Now if she were someone like Lil Wayne or T-Pain, that would be a different story. But when she gets a few more features to her name, it will be considered. Not now. –Chase (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus that "Video Phone" is not a Gaga single as it is a remix of a song that did not originally include her. As for T.I., please see WP:CRYSTAL. –Chase (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is consensus. –Chase (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Justin Bieber, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Why are you saying welcome? I've been here for months![reply]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Put It in a Love Song. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. I'm sorry but you cannot make claims that the video is not going to premier now. The summer is not over yet and for all you know the single could still be properly released. It is premature and unsourced, unpublished original research to remove such information. If the video was never released the source would be retained so that in the future we could say "the video was rescheduled for the summer^[1] but in the end it never appeared." -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is WP:UNCIVIL of you to call me stupid. As I said before, the summer is still here and it could still premier any time. Even if it doesn't the source will be retained so that we can factually claim that a summer release was planned. Now unless you have anything else to add its the end of the matter. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 20:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll give it a few more weeks because Alicia Keys is set to announce the re-release of her album (in which case it will seal the fate of "PIIALS" as unreleased).-- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Animal (Kesha album), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell. Do NOT edit my sandboxes. Further, the info you added is incorrect. Read the opening "TBA is the sophomore album ". 2nd album. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ calm down, only trying to help. I have a source that says the album will be released in time for Christmas, a RELIABLE source. Your source is incorrect, it will be out this year not next year.

Few things. One, your addition is not reliable in any way shape or form. Fansites/blogs and other crap like that are never allowed. Second, it had nothing to do with the article you added it to. That page is about her second album set for a August 2011 release, has nothing to do with the re-release set for December. Third, Ive already written and completed the article about the re-release which i will merge into Animal when the time is right. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Alright sorry. Jeez theres not need to be so rude! ONLY TRYING TO HELP![reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. This edit that you made to the article Lady Gaga has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but how is it nonconstructive? That is the discography section and the album is called 'Born This Way'. The album has been completed and should be included in the discography. I don't see why people need to own certain pages on Wikipedia, its turning this place into a shithole. Stop deleting everyones contributions just because it doesn't agree with you. Like, seriously, its pissing me off.

Okay, first of all, your tone will not be tolerated, you are being WP:UNCIVIL. Now by adding the album you are violating WP:CHRYSTAL since the album has no set release date, its not to be added, its not his personal opinion, its a rule which continual violation will get you blocked again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Aww diddums. Its the internet not a fucking playground. The album will be released in early 2011, which Gaga confirmed herself. All I did was add it to the discography because the album has been completed. You don't own Wikipedia and to be honest I couldn't really give a shit what you think. And Lakeshade, piss off and let me be.[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Only Girl (In the World), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC) It hasn't been released in the UK yet, so whats the point in saying it has? Seriously do your research Lakeshade.[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Put It in a Love Song, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to We R Who We R. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not allowed to say that WE R WHO WE R was released in the UK on the 22nd of October because you think its unreliable even though its true. And big fucking whoop, you're gonna block me. Oh I'm say scared, as if I could give a shit.

Not when the information you add isn't in the source. You linked (http://www.sonymusicdigital.com/kesha/features/5701921) as the source, it doesn't say anything about We R Who We R being released on the 22nd in the UK. And i suggest you watch your tone because im tired of cleaning up after you. Have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Watch my tone? Oh right sorry, I mean I suppose I have to take orders from you. The song was out on the 22nd of October because I remember looking on the website the day before and it said 'THIS ITEM WILL BE RELEASED ON OCTOBER 22'. So ha! Don't clean it up cos I'll just trash it all over again.[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Linkin Park has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. WAYNEOLAJUWON 21:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry that wasn't me, I hadn't logged out. I don't even know what happened but it wasn't me.[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article CocknBullKid, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC) There isn't a source, but I attended a concert where they were playing as a supporting act and they sang 'One Eye Closed', 'Mexico', 'Yellow', 'Asthma Attack' and 'Hold Onto Your Misery' and Anita said '...and the tracks we've played tonight are gonna be on the album, which we're gonna release in February'.[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to We R Who We R. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) What are you talking about? There is a source!!!!![reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Sandbox8. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Oooh I'm shaking(!)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User:L-l-CLK-l-l/Sandbox8, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to We R Who We R. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. As this is your second time being blocked for disruptive editing, I would advise treading very carefully in future and checking out WP:Reliability, WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Vianello (Talk) 23:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

This is your only warning

Read Wikipedia's policy about reliable sources. When you're done, read it again. Every one of your edits has been reverted, with edit summaries from other editors explaining that your sources are not appropriate or reliable, and you keep re-adding them. Other people should not have to constantly clean up your work. This is your only warning, as you've been blocked before for disruption.
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Born This Way, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - eo (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Please take this time to read up on Wikipedia's verification policies. - eo (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for blocking me you ignorant cunt. What type of fucking Gaga fan are you when you delete official information? Honest to fucking god no-one can do anything on Wikipedia anymore due to people like you. But no, thanks for ruining Wikipedia you fucking asshole.[reply]

Your block has now been extended to one month, and edit access to your talk page has been revoked during the course of the block. - eo (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Blow (song). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information added was sourced. If you click on the link and go to the video the date clearly says 'UPLOADED 25TH FEBRUARY".

April 2011

Enough. Another unsourced additions, as you just did to Born This Way, you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. Either understand Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources, else you will be barred from editing. We don't need uber fans like you clouding the encyclopeia. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did source it, then you deleted it. So I added it again. The source I added was an interview in which Gaga herself confirms the new track named 'Heavy Metal Lover', I even had the decency to tell you at which point she says this. It's not my fault you're ignorant, either understand that you're ruining Wikipedia by deleting everything that is official and confirmed or let other users add information. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Within a dream (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 April 2011

Echoing the comments by Legolas above. Stop disrupting articles. Read WP:RS and WP:CIVIL. You've been here long enough to have read some policies regarding reliable sources, how to format them and civil behavior toward other editors. - eo (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh bitch, just butt in why don't you... - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Within a dream (talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 April 2011

If that's going to be your attitude, I think it's clear that you have no interest in constructively working with other editors. It's not the kind of atmosphere we need in Wikipedia. - eo (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the official tracklisting has been released with 'Heavy Metal Lover' on it, which is the track I added to the list! Well my "disruptive" actions appear to be completely legit and correct.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing, incivility. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

- eo (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I promise to read official guidelines before editing pages and will not be disruptive or insult any user again :) Within a dream (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With your record of warnings, blocks, and abusive responses, I see no benefit to the project in unblocking you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'd suggest that if you want to try another unblock request, you come up with something better than a "pretty please, I promise" and a smiley. Perhaps try explaining what you have been doing wrong and showing some understanding of why it was wrong, and/or tell us what you intend to contribute here and how you plan to go about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I actually have no idea what I have been doing wrong, more or less every contribution I have made is perfectly fine and most of the information I have added is official, although a large amount of ignorant users seem to think otherwise. I don't wake up every morning, come on here and deliberately "disrupt" the pages just so I can get blocked again and again. You guys take this site waaayyy to seriously, so what's wrong with other users adding official and confirmed information? So yeah, my reason for wanting to get unblocked is that I intend to thoroughly look through the guidelines page etc. and try to understand why you guys run such a tight ship. This'll get rejected, but at least I tried Within a dream (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblocking is not required for reading policies and guidelines. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Let me check I'm understanding this. You're saying that despite all those warnings above, and despite the blocks you have had, you still have no idea what you were doing wrong? And you're saying you'll start reading all our policy pages only AFTER you get unblocked? Can you see how people might possibly see that as the wrong way round? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it the wrong way round? If I had fucked up the pages when I edited stuff or had deleted information by accident then MAYBE I would have read the guidelines. But my edits were perfectly harmless, they must of taken you about 3 seconds to delete. And you didn't actually point out what I was doing wrong, writing "disruptive" all the time is a great help...

If you are not able to understand the simple message I have tried to give you, then I can help you no further. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]