User talk:MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010/January

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I can i bring to your attention a number of edits that you have made to "in a perfect world" the new album by keri hilson. First of you have done what many other editors have and reverted the article to its table format for the album track-listing. this is a direct violation of wikipedia rules.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Jennifer Lopez. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove

I see Heavy Rotation (Anastacia Album) exists again. Would you mind if the article were moved to a subpage of your user space so you could continue working on it until it's ready as an aricle? Also, according to naming guidelines "Album" shouldn't be capitalized in the title of the article. Gimmetrow 12:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Userfied as

User:MariAna Mimi/Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album). Gimmetrow

20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you think the page is ready for article space. The image you uploaded has about a week before it is automatically deleted, though it can be uploaded again of course. Gimmetrow 16:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Article was unprotected through WP:Requests for page protection, so I've moved this version over. Gimmetrow 21:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you are consistently reverting my edit which removes the label name "Universal". I really think its redundant to indicate "universal" since she is signed to a front line label known as Mercury. If we should go with the logic of including "Universal", then we might as well indicated Sony BMG after daylight/epic, making it something like daylight/epic/Sony BMG. But the reality is that this is not the way it's done for hundreds of artist infoboxes here on wiki.

So in keeping consistent with the wiki convention and to avoid redundancies, either we remove universal from the current "mercury / universal" setup. Or we can be a little more redundant and add Sony BMG to make daylight/epic/song bmg, making the "universal / mercury" entry consistent with the first company (but it is still inconsistent with other wiki artist boxes). Obviously the more logical choice would be to omit universal outright.

First I wanna apologize if I was impolite in any way, I usually forget to sign my posts (bad habit). Her Daylight/Epic releases exhibit the imprints in all markets, and Universal will most likely do the exact same thing in all foreign markets. She is an American based artist, both under daylight/epic and under Mercury since these companies are all based in the US. So in the same way that International Sony BMG companies released/distributed her stuff all over Europe, Asia, Mid East etc. bearing her original frontline label affiliations (daylight & epic), I think Universal International companies will do the same thing with her Mercury releases, a routine practice for decades. So I'm not entirely convinced the two entries have to differ in this way. Again I apologize if I came out impolite. Imperatore (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you can get back to me so we can finalize this issue quickly. Thank. Imperatore (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how that sentence proves anythings. In the past she always talked about her people at "sony" referring to sony music, but I don't see sony music after epic & daylight. Secondly I'm in Canada and unfortunately here, as you might know, Universal has not yet brought the album. I don't wanna argue how the convention should be for indicating companies and imprints, the only thing that bugs me is what I had said earlier- the logic of the first entry (not indicating parent) does not match the second entry (indicating parent). Imperatore (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously she worked with tons of people and probably negotiated with many who work in different jobs within Universal. For instance, a marketing or A&R person that works with all the "labels". After all, these labels don't operate in isolation from one another, they are part of one big company, and usually that's the advantage of consolidating them into one big whole. So good for her for writing the thank you note in a way where she won't forget anyone within the company. This is probably even more obvious for an artist like Anastacia who manages a transnational career- she has to deal with "Universal" international companies when she is abroad. But the bottom line for the infobox is: who is she signed to. It seems that she's with the new Mercury through island def jam music group in the usa where David Massey is new exec. So in the US you put the front-line label in the artist infobox, exactly how it is indicated for her us-based signing under epic/daylight. Imperatore (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the album covers and they confirm that its an The Island Def Jam Music Group release under the "mercury" label. So now this reinforces my argument that the standard rule for artists in the US under universal and other multinational parents- you write only the front-line label in wiki. And I was looking at the australian cover, distributed by "universal music australia". I also found it interesting that the universal logo is NOT included on the back cover or spine, but this is irrelevant and doesn't have to do with my argument. 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in regards to your recent label related revert, I just wanted to point out the "Mercury" of Island Def Jam, is the label to which she is signed and recorded for. This label will appear on the covers and in the database of retailers all over the world, that does not change. So theoretically, every territory can be: universal music / mercury, like the first round of countries on the history table. However, there are currently only four territories which operate "frontline" mercury divisions: Mercury of IDJ (US), Mercury of Mercury Music Group (UK), Mercury of UMFR (France), and Mercury of UMAUS (Australia). US and UK, no question there only Mercury is sufficient to satisfy wp:albums, France could have both labels since "Universal Music" is a key brand, but they love to differentiate based on labels, even though their operations are fully consolidated into one "universal music france". As for Asutralia, they have a Mercury, but theres was strictly created as a local-Australian A&R division, hence it only handles the (Australian) artists it signs; all "international" repertoire goes through the central "UMAUS". Unfortunately they have no website, but Australia's Island Records does have a website- the other local A&R- and under releases you can see that they only handle their own repertoire, therefore you won't see a Mariah Carey album there for example, but you will see her albums at the central UMAUS site. That being said, the release history "label" should be handled like a release company, because if we just go with "labels", then theoretically the entire box should have the label "Mercury". Imperatore (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there MariAna Mimi, I'd just like to bring to your attention of dashes. You've changes emdashes to endashes in several articles in the infobox in years recorded. Per

Better. Remember that there are only supposed to be 18 charts in any article, so if you add any, you should take others away.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 64.140.0.3 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it looks like there's an edit war going on between you and Noboyo over professional reviews on Human (Brandy album). I thought I'd mention it just because I'm curious as to why it's so important to you both. So could you perhaps shift it to the talk page and hash it out there and then decide once and for all on something? Souldier77 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mari, just to let you know, doing this, does not semi protect the article. If you would like the article protected you can make a request

Thanks for uploading

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the reason I reverted your change to

And keep up the good work on music articles – we need more real editors on them and fewer IP addresses putting in all sorts of crazy stuff. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just adding that website names shouldn't be italicized either. Please see

MOS:TITLE for further information. Thanks, --JD554 (talk

) 20:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

--Madchester (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, please follow the two policies/guidelines listed above. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of reverting edits against existing policies/guidelines, feel free to use a release history table from another article (like Down to Earth (Jem album)) as a template for other album or song articles. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to No Line on the Horizon. Thank you. Mfield (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

In regards to your removal of content on No Line on the Horizon; please see the relevant discussion on the Talk page regarding reviews in the infobox. Thank you.

Please read edit summaries and talk page before you make unnecessary edits. To further explain:

• Date Format (Tour Table): (from Manual of Style)
  • Dates in article body text should all have the same format.
  • Dates in article references should all have the same format.
  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.
• Tour Schedule: (from Wikipedia is not a crystal ball)
  • Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.
    • As stated in my edit summary, the tour currently ends on 7/12/09. Those are the only dates schedule. Thus, as far as the general public is concerned, the tour ends on 7/12/09. When more dates are added, then this can be changed. Saying the tour will have more than one leg or end on a certain date is just pure speculation until it is otherwise reported.
• External links: Should relate to the content of the article, not the subject. Myspace and Youtube links are fine for an article about the artist themselves but not in this context. Additionally, there is no need to Wiki-link an article to Italy over and over again. One wiki link is sufficient.

Lyonhunter (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Dancers: Please, don't try to list dancers in band since they are part of entertainment and song part of the band. Two different categories; that's why there is Musical Director and Entertainment/ Acting/ Dancing Director. Still I thank you for updating this page. comment added by Darkfreakxx7 (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When and where? Do you have a link? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by North Gem (talk • contribs) 18:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not italicize

Hi... I noticed that a review I added was removed. I had added it because that was the only favourable review I read online. It would be good to hear the other side of the story as well!~judethedevil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judethedevil (talk • contribs) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Reminder (sept2009)

Hi user, please can i remind you that as an editor of experience you should be using a

.

In response to this; in the

Hi there, I believe we've spoken before... Just wanted to remind you that Anastacia always had an American signing with epic/daylight, even though all the albums were generally released by overseas sony music companies only. In the same way how you've put only "mercury" for the recent album, the same logic is to put epic and daylight as labels in the infobox and discography for the other albums. Either way, we must keep a consistent logic, so if you should put "sony bmg" in the discography under label, then you might as well add "universal music" to the recent album. But the correct (and consistent!) way is as aforementioned (omit all parent companies cuz in the US, where she's always been signed, they operate as standalone/frontline operations). FYI Sony BMG came into existence in 2004, so the first two albums were under sony music as a parent, so this correction had to be made anyway. On another note, I really think it's a commendable job you've done maintaining her page. Imperatore (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed just from the amount of edits in the history tab that you're mostly running the show here. I'll definitely keep her in mind for expansion, although I'm not very familiar since I only really discovered her around the time Left Outside Alone was released to mainstream North American radio. As for the new album, I think it has a solid base, and then some, however there's some outdated information on there. For instance, it's very likely to assume that there's not gonna be a North American tour after all- she remains an export :(. Imperatore (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! I didn't read up on the musical project yet. Forgot to mention that what I find oddly fascinating about her is that even though she is destined only for european/asian release, under her American signings her A&R people have only hooked her up with mostly American music industry people it seems. Also it seems that virtually all her stuff has been recorded in studios in NYC and LA. This is kind of ironic considering some of the biggest pop songs of the last decade by American artists, e.g. Britney spears, have been recorded in Europe, like in Sweden, by Swedish composers and producers. You would think that somewhere along the line some sony music people in Europe would've had some kind of involvement in the production of her music. But the reality is that she was always marketed as an American import, whereas in America she is an export only (generally speaking) lol. Imperatore (talk) 11:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear User, you have made many constructive edits, please can you add your opinion to the following discussion. thanks (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for uploading File:Anastacia HMH 2009 Amsterdam.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here
  .

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Chris Pine.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  here
  .

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Hello please could you briefly add your opinion to: Talk:Flirt (album)#Article Redirect. Thank you (Lil-unique1 (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

This edit of mine - I apologise. I did not intend to call this vandalism, but I hit the wrong button. It's not vandalism. The "You Tube" link is not needed and is not acceptable by

I was NOT vandalising, I was returning it to when it had citation. You have no citation as to if the first single will be released on September 29th, so I will return the page to one with citation and when you have citation for a release date, then add it back. Jayy008 (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Track listing

You should actually look at what you are reverting.

• the prepositions should be small case e.g. "Its A Wrap" should be "Its a Wrap".
• barry white for example did NOT physically write the song with MC, but should be accredited because his sample was used.
• The song Betcha Gonna Know is actually called "Betcha Gonna Know (The Prologue)" the note feature should be reserved for specifiying samples and features. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

You did not provide a reason for reverting my edit to

Template:Infobox Musical artist. Do not revert my edits again without valid reason. POKERdance ^talk/contribs

02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you both please discuss this issue rather than just reverting and more reverting. This is a featured article that is currently under review and I don't know how many times the genres have been changed over the last few weeks. Hitting the revert button isn't working, so try something else please. I've spent a lot of time working on the article to try to retain its featured article status and this type of tendentious and disruptive editing on such a minor part of the entire article, undermines that process. I don't care what genres you all decide upon, but please hurry up and sort it out. Take a look at other featured articles, for example. Look at

Madonna that only uses three genres, for example. Take it to the music project and get another viewpoint, for example. Please just accept that the constant reverting is getting nowhere and find a more productive approach. Thanks. Rossrs (talk

) 09:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MariAna Mimi. You have new messages at Pokerdance's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything Burns

Hi! It appears to me that Everything Burns is a single from the Fantastic Four soundtrack. Therefore that does not make it a single off Pieces of a Dream, leaving the compilation with 2 singles. If this is the case, Pieces of a Dream singles listing and her navbox need to be fixed. Imperatore (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Several month gap between the song and the album. Also it would only make sense to have the first single "Pieces of a Dream" since it's the title of the compilation as well. Also Everything Burns is on Wind-Up and not Epic (if current infobox is accurate), reinforcing that it's not associated directly with her releases. Imperatore (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Just remembered something...Wind-Up (an indie) is distributed by Epic, therefore there will inevitably be a "wind up / epic" like association on various sites.

I Look to You (Issues with Editing)

Your persistance with track-listings is getting rather annoying and disruptive. For whatever reason you seem to prefer tables and tracklist templates to a numeric list which according to

WP:album

there is no notable reaons for preference. What's more is that you dont seem to be able to allow others to contribute to an article without making nuisance/trivial edits to others additions. for example in the article I Look to You you felt in necessary to change the track-list template seperate the producers and writers. This is only appropriate when we have the exact producers and writers. Right now there is no source in the article which proves this although the rap-up review tells us 9 of the producers/writers. Furthermore

WP:Albums

Clearly states that once a producer is mentioned once they should then subsequently be mentioned by surname and intial. For example subsequent recurrings of Claude Kelly becomes C. Kelly. Furthermore where an artist has a performaing name e.g. Christopher Stewart = Tricky Stewart, on subsequent mentionings Christopher "Tricky" Stewart should be referred to as Tricky Stewart.

On previous occassions i have backed down e.g. with Anastacia's most recent album and with Keri Hilson's In a Perfect World... but it doesnt not set a good example to other wikipedians if we have users such as yourself going against wikipedia general consensus and editing in such a way that could be seen as disruptive and/or trivial. i am going to revert the track listing format back to its last most correct version. I am more than happy to discuss improvements but will not stand back and watch articles being edited for personal credit/or personal satisfaction. Articles such as this one are likely to be highly trafficked and should adhere to the highest of quality standards. This by the way also includes writing critical reception in continuous prose. Reviews of the same nature/idea should be written in the same paragrph. Reviews should not be listed. Furthermore i would disregard adding any more reviews, the article has enough for now. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

You wanted proof for what i said, here it is: "Note the standard method of attributing songwriters—write (and link) the full name the first time it appears, and then just give the last name (unless the first initial or entire first name is necessary to disambiguate it, as in the Gallagher brothers of Oasis, or Brad and Brett Warren of The Warren Brothers). If all songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." If several songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano, except where noted." This can be found at

WP:albums#Article body and then under the tracklist sub-section. (Lil-unique1 (talk

) 21:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

with regards to critical reception there is no benefit to having an obsessively large body of text on this when it is copied and sourced from other websites. if people want to read reviews that is why they are listed in the infobox. im sorry if it seemed i was trying to control the content of the article. i was not. we appear to have got off on the wrong foot, it is clear we are both passionate editors and if we work together we can achieve higher editing standards rather than working against each other. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel

can i ask where you have sourced the track listing from? (Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Re:Question

if you wish to report user for edit warring i recommend

WP:AN/EW. On the forum board administrators constantly monitor the discussions. You will be asked to outline exactly when and how the user in question has violated wikipedia rules regarding reversions and editing. I have taken a look at the page history myself and i am 100% confident that the administrators will see a ban as the most appropriate action. You tried to engage in discussion with him/her and they have blatantly refused to comemnt despite several discussion attempts being opened. (Lil-unique1 (talk

) 17:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Anastacia's voice type

Hi there MariAna Mimi. Thanks for the inquirery. I am by no means an authority on singing, although I am a professional cellist and know a lot about music. My wife is an opera singer so I have picked up some knowledge from her and of course I know some things just from working as a musician and from my college days. The article originally stated she was a "

talk

) 08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome.

talk

) 08:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Heavy Rotation Deluxe Edition.jpg

Thank you for uploading

image copyright tag

; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Σxplicit 21:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Label Names

Actually if you look under release history section of

WP:albums it says no such thing, that quote you've picked out refers to the infobox and if you look at the likes of Spirit (Leona Lewis album) which was fetaured and has been highly approved it is the norm to include the latter part of the record labels for the release history (notice its Syco Music not Syco!), furthermore it is necessary for universal because there is a universal records and and a universal music which are different as well as Island Records and Island Music Group. Mercury also has Mercury Records and Mercury Group, as does Polydor (Polydor Group and Polydor records). (Lil-unique1 (talk

) 18:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

Capitalisations and Tracklisting Surnames

WP:albums clearly states that once a producer/writer has been mentioned one in full name e.g. Jorge Drexler in subsequesnt mentionings he/she should be referred to as Drexler. An initial (such as J. Drexler) should only be used if there is more than one person with the same name working on the album. This is not the case with She Wolf (album)

so i do not understand why you want this information included so much.

Furthermore wikipedia articles should follow good grammer rules. This is why I Look to You is named as it is and not as I Look To You even though that is it's official title. This logic and rule applies to shakira's second single "Did it Again" (not "Did It Again") (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

Shakira performance

Why, if it can be appreciated on videos and the public opinion says it, you edited my input that stated that Shakira made a lyp-synching performance of "She Wolf" and "Did it again" in Jimmy Kimmel Live? Jevitop (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs of an Imperfect Angel

Why did you remove the professional review by planetill.com.--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks!--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Red links and attitude

Hello, this is a reply to your extremely rude undo of one of my previous edits to the article The Boy Who Knew Too Much.

JODI MARR IS A PAGE THAT DOES NOT EXIST!! stop linking it!!!!

As you’re clearly unaware of the concept of Wikipedia:Red_links please introduce yourself and then refrain from removing correct red links in the future. Also try and sort out your attitude towards fellow Wikipedia contributors. Thanks, Freshpop (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Using capital letters and a string of exclamation marks is really quite rude, and completely unnecessary. I’ve seen other people on your talk page who have had to clarify their own edits to you as you have wrongly presumed they’re wrong, mostly due to a lack of understanding on your part. You should presume that because I keep red linking Jodi Marr that it is my full intention to eventually create a Wikipedia article about her, and just because you don’t know who someone is doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an article about them. Thanks once again, Freshpop (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know you said sorry, I was just pointing out why it was rude. Yes I do have an idea about the what the discussion was about, by the same way you did; reading, and it does seem just jump on people's edits even if they're correct. Thanks for the sarcasm. Freshpop (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi there. When undoing or redoing an undo of an article, please state your reasons in the edit summary as full (and politely) as you can. I accept and apologise that my edits on

edit war would have been avoided. Also, I can see from previous discussions on your talk page that users have been complaining about your attitude when writing reasons for an edit (for example, User: Freshpop's quite recent message), especially if they are an redo of your own edits which have been undone. I have to say, I do agree. Please try and keep Wikipedia a team working environment, be polite, and be respectful of other users. Thank you very much. Jonny (talk

) 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of Edits

page history. Thank you. -Shadow (talk

) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Tour

Look at the tourbook setlist it clearly says "Burning Up/ Vogue", "Boombox/Can't Get You out Of My Head," etc...and where did you get this "Sex instrumental" from? It's called heart beat rock segue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAnjX2AAAsILecarlos (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank U!

I wrote the critical review section, thanx 4 your comment!! :D :P (MariAna MiMi)

You are welcome. It was really well-written. Keep up the good work. Orane (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that you always sign your name with "(MariAna MiMi)". In order to sign properly, with the date and time etc, just write this:~~~~.

Reality Killed the Video Star

Thank you for your informative edit summaries around this article. Might I make a suggestion? If there is informative and cited material in an article that you feel is in the wrong part of an article, then it would be better to move that material to where you think it does go rather than simply deleting it. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to

WP:PRESERVE are key policy here; they are far more important than WP:ALBUMS. I will endeavour to improve the Reality Killed the Video Star article over time, in line with WP:ALBUMS guidance, but some information, be it incomplete or not formatted in a standard way, is more useful that none. It would be great, if you have the time, if you could re-work the material I've added to better fit WP:ALBUMS style. Bondegezou (talk

) 14:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion.

Dear user. I would like to invite you to the following discussion about the use of Physical and Digital album charts. Discussion here (Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

ALL CAPS

Please refrain from ALL CAPS edit summaries as you did here. Seriously, it looks like shouting and helps no-one. If you have an issue with article sourcing it is best discussed on the relevant talk page before reverting. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

If you continue to revert without engaging in discussion on the talk page of Rated R (Rihanna album) I will block you. Please stop, now, and engage in discussion. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• LAtimes, Chicago Tribune, and USA Today have been added to the list for
  talk
  ) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop reverting me

Why you revert my edits in Reality Killed the Video Star? according to you, a famous singer that release an album and debuts at peaks at a # 160 is a success? nothing that I am editing is false or even a vandalism. you made a lot of mistakes, as I can see in your talk page. if you keep with your disruptive attitude to reverse without consensus, I will notify an administrator to block you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.231.211.214 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

and you need to see below in the table to learn the position of the album in the United States. and please leave your comments on talk pages, not in the edit summary and please use lowercase letters. you do not need to be rude.

WARNING

You have recently engaged in edit-warring on pages, including the

WP:CIVILITY. Considering that you have already been warned about this kind of behaviour recently, if you persist in this behaviour you will be blocked from editing. 80.47.92.139 (talk

) 22:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

SECOND WARNING

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at

three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 80.47.139.130 (talk

) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Despite various warnings, in light of your continued edit-warring behaviour on this article, you have been reported for violation of

WP:3RR. 80.47.79.135 (talk

) 02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

247

07:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Notes: Aside from the edit warrning and 3RR violation at this article, you were also given a final warning ([1]) by another admin for this same behaviour at another article. You must learn to use

247

07:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I only tried to stop other IP adresses to change/delete sources and information; i contributed to the page more than anyone else, I believe there is no reason for this, and this does not encourage me to write anymore Wikipedia articles...

Decline reason:

You were asked to stop several times and kept edit warring. Please note that

the three revert rule is enforced very strictly. If someone reverts your edit, begin a discussion on the talk page, as opposed to reverting back and forth. TNXMan

12:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Anastacia Defeated Promo Single3.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:I Want To Know What Love Is MC.jpg

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at

three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 80.47.35.172 (talk

) 03:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

civility note

Hi- please

WP:OWN. Cheers, tedder (talk

) 14:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

your signature

BTW, I've noticed that your signature does not link to your user or talk pages. I suspect you've customized it to be this way.

Wikipedia:SIG#Internal links

says "Signatures must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive."

Let me know if you need help fixing this. tedder (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:

You just stay where they are called, because the conversation is not with you. Furthermore the AllMusic says that the album is R&B, not pop/R&B, do not be bias ...

talk

) 22:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning for disruption & Notice of temporary editing restriction

Rather than block you immediately for continued edit warring, I've felt you should get this a final warning to end the

ownership

concerns (as noted above by notices from other admins). You must not abuse the revert tool any further, nor should you continue to discuss things on the article's talk page in a hostile manner. Otherwise, you will be blocked.

Editing restriction at Reality Killed the Video Star

Further, due to continued abuse of

WP:BLP violations. The length of one month was selected as the previous two weeks full protection on the article didn't seem to deter this behaviour. The restriction will be enforced by a block of whatever period any admin who is notified of its breach determines to be appropriate. I don't want to block you, thus I hope this compromise is something you're able to abide by. NJA (t/c)

13:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rated R (Rihanna album)

I would like some help with the

talk

) 21:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

About the reviews box, is there a limit on reviews like b4 with a 10 review maximum?

talk

) 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

civility in edit summaries

I've asked you before, but please discontinue putting abusive comments in your edit summaries, which you've done as recently as three hours ago ([2], [3]). Please remain calm with your editsummaries and talk page comments going forward. Cheers, tedder (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

reverting. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c)

09:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin notes: As noted directly above, admin tedder issued another civility warning, and had apparently missed my final warning given just yesterday. You are blocked as you were told clearly to stop disrupting Wikipedia by reverting and by editing in a hostile manner that causes civility issues and demonstrates article ownership by you. Also, you already violated your editing restriction by re-adding the billboard content. As you're under an editing restriction, you should be discussing things on the talk pages first before reverting. You must take these issues seriously or your next blocks will last for weeks, if not longer. NJA (t/c) 10:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, on your talk page alone, I count 9 warnings about edit warring and misuse of revert; 5 on etiquette and civility; and 3 specifically on reverting and impolite edit summaries. Also I notice a pattern of you referring to others' edits as vandalism to excuse your behaviour. That type of behaviour is

tendentious, and it needs to stop. Unfortunately without some major adjustments by you, I do not believe this will be your last block. NJA (t/c)

10:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How do you want me to stop IP adresses to vandalize Wikipedia without undoing their edits? why am I the one blocked and not them, when the only thing I do is to contribute to the pages!? this is really illogical don't you think? The Billboard source was perfectly good that's why i added it back! as you might see i only use good sources for every article i edit! also the comments on my page many were left by IP adresses, can't u see? and in most cases i was right & they were wrong

Decline reason:

Even if you are right and they are wrong, that is not a justification for either incivility or edit warring.  Sandstein  10:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

78.97.164.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "MariAna Mimi". The reason given for MariAna Mimi's block is: "Disruptive editing: continued WP:CIVIL problems and revert

• Blocking administrator: NJA (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding {{unblock | your reason here}} to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 22:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

move Bad Habits (Maxwell song)

I want 2 move this article to

talk

) 06:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring (December 29, 2009)

After being blocked already twice this month, and being told you cannot use "revert" on the article for a period of one month, you have once again broken the 3RR on the article

Reality Killed The Video Star and you will be reported.80.47.9.124 (talk

) 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

edit warring. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. tedder (talk

) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

MariAna Mimi, please take this seriously. You may be banned from editing certain articles and/or types of articles, including

Reality Killed The Video Star. tedder (talk

) 17:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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).

MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I just think that this is not right at all...I hope that the block period will be reduced.The IP user did not talk about his/her edits before reverting, adding information. The user added more reviews to the infobox as well as adding unsourced info at the review section. Do you believe that this is right? I've been editing Wiki for quite some time and still i get blocked by some Ip user who has editied Wiki for not more than 4 hours and seems to be more concerned to block me insted of editing the article.People who contribute to Wiki get blocked while others who just come to mess things up continue to do what they want...I hope that you also see that i was reported by IP adresses who all seem to be fixated on the same idea of adding a specific review to the page, don't you think that's really strange??Anyway i hope that you reconsider the time period. Thank U!

Decline reason:

You do not own those articles. Edit warring is not permissible unless you are reverting

talk

) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

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

archiving

.

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes: User continues to revert and edit in an un-collaborative manner by not using talk pages to reach consensus. Despite multiple warnings and blocks they have yet to acknowledge the disruption, nor stop it. See this final warning and restriction that's been recently breached by reverting on the article. NJA (t/c) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. NJA (t/c) 08:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Notes: User continues to revert and edit in an un-collaborative manner by not using talk pages to reach consensus. Despite multiple warnings and blocks they have yet to acknowledge the disruption, nor stop it. See this final warning and restriction that's been recently breached by reverting on the article. NJA (t/c) 08:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

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).

MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is stupid & illogical at the same time! I did not undo anything on the Reality Killed the Video Star page!!!! I only made good contributions to the article!!! am I supposed to discuss every single small edit that i make to the article on the talk page?? in your opinion? there was nothing to discuss and every edit I made only had a POSITIVE effect on the article!! as it was well sourced and according to Wikipedia rules! which means that i did not break any violation! this block is not justified at all and only makes me think that this administrator has something against me....?!

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but

blaming other editors will not get your block lifted. Discuss your behavior, why you were blocked, and how you will change your behavior to avoid being blocked in the future. TNXMan

15:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

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).

MariAna Mimi/Archives/2010 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I still can't understand why i was blocked and what I did wrong. My only intention is to contribute to the Reality Killed the Video Star page in a positive way. I do not consider the page/or the article to be "mine" anyone can edit the page as long as they give a reliable source, I did not revert any edits, I did not break any Wikipedia rules, I was not rude. I'm sorry if i did something wrong but i can't see the reason behind this block

Decline reason:

If you still don't understand why edit warring, blanking content, and not discussing matters on talk pages is not the right approach, then there is no compelling reason to even consider unblocking you. Try reading

talk

) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

---

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

Apparently you're unclear of the issue (despite numerous removed notices and warnings on this page). To be clear, the problem is that you continue to remove information from the article without discussion on the article's talk page. Usually boldly editing Wikipedia is okay, however you've been doing this in disruptive manner that has lead to edit warring in the past, established you as taking ownership of the article, and it got to the point that an editing restriction was placed upon your edits to the article. Overall the behaviour is demonstrative of someone editing in an un-collaborative way, when in fact Wikipedia is a collaborative project. As a recent example, at the end of your last block by admin Tedder (for edit warring and article ownership), you made this edit with the edit summary of: 'reverted some edits, will add info back'. However you didn't really add it back, but rather selectively added bits to your liking, and explained some of your reasoning in subsequent edit summaries. Note that edit summaries are not a substitute for the talk page, particularly as you're on an editing restriction! The issue here is not with me, but with your editing tendencies, which drastically need to change. NJA (t/c) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)