I have no idea why you blank your talk page of warnings as you are likelier to get blocked. Anyway, if you paid any attention you would realize that the album version was one of the first recordings for her debut in the first half of 1998, NOT EVEN 1999 as by January 1999 the album was nearly finished. Please check that an addition will be 100% correct before adding it next time.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking for trouble
That is a personal attack and can be reported. I clearly made the change stating the recording date of June 1998 for the album version, not 1999. You obviously didn't as I also provided all the recording dates for most of her other early singles and the 1999 album's recording period. Please monitor how you conduct yourself as your previous conduct has not been going on well with other users. A good of amount your contributions are beneficial, but your record isn't so pleasant. Good day.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay
Glad to know that this is resolved. I hope I wasn't too abrasive, but I feel I have to stand up for myself towards the possibility of being belittled. If you want a fresh talk page you can delete my comments, but removing warnings(only administrator given) is a dangerous risk I wouldn't recommend. We should all try to provide sources or explanations for edits as much as we can.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove 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.Candyo3221:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. If its not sourced its not WP:V, which all content must be. Whatever you or I may think the song is ... we are not the ones to classify its genre. Its not even electrohop if anything its Electropop, Dancehall etc. but those are not sourced. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |talk2me18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still dont understand the point hear. No one is saying that Electrohop doesn't exist. What I AM SAYING is "unless a source calls 'Woohoo' electrohop, neither you OR no one else can claim that it is". End of. So please stop making this into an issue... and next time you write on my talk page sign it using four tilds ~~~~ This is also applies to any other song where you have attempted to change the genres too. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 |talk2me18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, don't be sorry for anything. You haven't done anything wrong. We've all been beginners once. Experience will help. And per WP:NFCC policy's third point opposes to having two covers. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message18:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regularly, you would do the following: on the left-hand side there are several options. Under the "Toolbox" category, the option is "Upload file". Click it. Then click the words "upload form" in the sentence "If you are familiar with our image policies and already know which license applies, go directly to the upload form", located right under the salmon box. Then there you are, ready to upload. However you should read this to know what to do when uploading album or single covers. In your case, since the "Backflip" cover is already uploaded, just go to the image's page and click "Upload a new version of this file" under the File history section. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you got the memo earlier, BUT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A SOURCE FOR WHEN A SONG WAS RECORDED, PLEASE STOP ADDING THE YEARS IN SONG INFOBOXES. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 22:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here and its not just that page, most of your edits to Wikipedia are adding years to recording dates. If you do not have a reliable source for these days PLEASE DO NOT ADD. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final Warning
This is your last warning about unsourced changes to genres.
Any genre of a song or album must be sourced from reliable sources. Genres cannot be listed due to personal or public opinion, or due to the charts which a song or album appears on. This has been explained to you a number of times yet you appear to be not hearing it. You have made little or not attempt to engage in any discussion about genre changes and leave me no choice but to issue this final warning. The next time you make an unsourced or unreferenced change to a genre you will be taken to the administrators noticeboard where I will advocate that administrators need to become involved in the situation as you are brining wikipedia into disrepute. Note than consistent disruption of this sort is punishable by blocking or banning users indefinitely. Note this warning also applies to your numerous additions of unsourced recording dates. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]03:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stalking you but we do edit a lot of the same pages. If it isn't me warning you it would be someone else. At the end of the day your edits are wrong and hence you've been warned. I have not stalked you. Merely warned you like I do others when they edit incorrectly. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
can you show me: 1) which articles you wish to upload them for, 2) which sources are they from? If i deem them appropriate I will do them for you but only if you learn how to do it for next time. :) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid alternative covers are not usually allowed per the link given above by Candyo32. International copyright laws only allow us to upload one cover as its a non-free image. Sometimes multiple covers are appropriate where there sufficient additional context to be gained from it. additionally the sources provided are not good. (bar amazon). -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However the sources you've taken the covers from are not clear or reliable. When you upload covers or any image you are always asked for a source. In the end it would boil down to a copyright infringement as there is no way in proving they are official. As such because it is a matter of international law I'll refrain from getting involved on this occassion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I have told you this before but airplay is not a format of release. But I know I have told you this before I F Y O U DO N O T HAVE A SOURCE FOR A DATE A SONG WAS RECORDED DO NOT ADD IT, WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN IT WAS RECORDED. ' I know I have told you this several, several times before so now I will conclude that you continue to add these dates to articles just for the heck of it. Candyo3220:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About these warnings
One more strike and you're out!!
You've now received final warnings for two separate issues. Consider that the last final warning you'll receive without repercussions. Next time administrators will be notified and you will be sanctioned with a blockorban. I can't make it any clearer... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1[talk]03:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent contributions to the Goodbye Lullaby have been reverted as they appear to be vandalism (restoring an old version of the page, thus, removing countless contributors' edits). Your edit summaries only cite a change in date format (from DMY to MDY), but your reason only explains that "it's stupid".
Avril Lavigne is of Canadian descent and so all of her articles have been created in Canadian English. Part of this editing style includes date format, which is Day-Month-Year. If you wish to start a discussion on the article to convert it back to American English, please do. But until proper discussion takes place, the current style should remain as that is the established consensus. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No more of this. You've been here long enough to understand that personal attacks are prohibited, and you've also been here long enough to know how to check an account's contribution history and see the Juanacho hasn't edited in 6 weeks.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Add it again you'll be blocked from editing. Ive told you, no source says specifically when the song was written or recorded. Anything added will be a violation of WP:OR and WP:SNYTH. Knock it off. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 18:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Would u mind sticking to the same title you first made on my talk page instead of creating a new one for every question please. calvin999 (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't charted on the Hot 100, but the page for Bubbling Under is offline, so we can't see where it is on that chart. I don't think the individual page for Man Down on Billboard.com reports charting on the Bubbling Under though. calvin999 (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want a lock on '4'?? It's only going to be added to in the coming month/2 months. There is no need for one. calvin999 (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC). But there was some album articles that had been secured 1-2 months b4 the album was released.[reply]
Means that it is semi-protected and only established users are able to edit. You can't lock an article from everyone. That is basically incubation, and there is no need for the album article to be semi protected. It's not being edited all the time, I know because it is on my watch-list. calvin999 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know who they are. If you can't find anything, how am I supposed to? Did it occur to you that as the song was released 5 years ago that any articles written about it are long gone or very hard to find. There may not be any reviews that are easily accessible now because it charted so poorly. To be honest, the page doesn't even need one, it's not a major song article which requires major coverage. calvin999 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The locations for recording are usually found in the linear notes and info on the album. Websites don't usually report where the song was recorded. calvin999 (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Fearless (Taylor Swift album). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Rihanna, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This edit summary is completely innapropriate. If you had added the reliable source to the article, to corroborate the content - we wouldn't be here, now would we? -- MST☆R(Chat Me!)12:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I removed the cover of China Anne McClain's version of "Dynamite" because the picture was a red link. If there's no picture, you don't add a red link, you're supposed to remove it. You can try uploading the picture again and then add it to the page. Easy4me (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pound the Alarm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page All Access (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. You can't get an administrator to stop warning you about misbehaviour by telling them to leave you alone. Like I said, another edit summary like the one noted above will result in a block. It's really pretty simple: if you don't want to be blocked, don't call people "fucking retards" in your edit summaries.—Kww(talk) 23:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As @Kww: requested, please do not patronize other editors by calling them "Dumbasses" like you did here or any other insult in edit summaries. Wikipedia is not a place to belittle others. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blockedindefinitely from editing for misuse of edit summaries. Any admin can unblock when editor agrees to stop referring to others as "dumbasses", "retards", or similar terms in edit summaries.. 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.
