User talk:Melody Prince$$

Welcome!

Hello, Melody Prince$$, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Secret account 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Thank you for all your help.Melody Prince$ (talk) 04:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

re: Eminem Recovery
"You do not remove"? Just because something is sourced does not make it notable nor enclyclopedic. The section was bloated and written like a first grade book report, and sections such as these have been removed/rewritten time and time again. It's also unappreciated when you immediately accuse me of vandalism when I clearly was cleaning up the article. If you want the information included, and written in that manner, then I suggest *you* gain a consensus on the article's talk page. - eo (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Uncommented reversions
Please do not undo other users edits without summary, as you did here and here. That treatment is normally reserved for vandalism, and, while you may disagree with them, neither Ericorbit or Quasyboy is a vandal.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay I understand thanks.-Melody Prince$ (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Usher
The article introduction is much to long and contains too much detail. We usually don't discuss album sales in detail in the intro, nor do we discuss the chart peaks for every single released. The intro is supposed to be a short and concise summary of the artist and his career. Otherwise, the article may be tagged with an NPOV sign. Do not revert my edits to the article. I did not remove too much. Oran e  (talk)  14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not revert your edits. I added back some detail but left out anything that wasn't necessary. While I fully understand what your saying sales are important and mentioned in the leads of many articles. I didn't put every single just his most successful.Melody Prince$ (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop
Stop re-adding information to the introduction of the Usher article. It's becoming extremely biased, and it may be tagged, leading to the removal of more material. I don't care if other articles have information about sales. That is not a valid argument (please read Other_stuff_exists). I'll be watching the article.

PS: your edits remind me of someone else who was once blocked from editing the article because he too would add information that was unnecessary. There are ways to find out if you are the same people. Oran e  (talk)  21:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop adding stuff to the lead but I really don't know who your referring too. I simply tried to figure out others thoughts on the situation. I really don't know how anything I've added was biased. I did not use my opinion on the article. I'm confused your aware of other articles using sales data but it can't be used on Ushers article? Why?Melody Prince$ (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: It also says on that link that Wikipedia should be consistent with what they do and do not include. So my case could be a valid argument.Melody Prince$ (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Some of the recent edits you made have been reverted, as they appear to be unconstructive. 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. Also, before accusing someone of vandalizing, check the guidelines. Please discuss content disputes without using the word "vandal". A vandal is someone that makes edits with the intent of harming Wikipedia. Thank you. --Dan56 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What negative reviews? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Perhaps you can show "personal feelings" there. Dan56 (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not. Not once did I remove anything negative from any review. Well there are 3 types of a review. Mixed, Negative, and Positive. I know this is not a blog. Not once did I remove anything negative! I did not remove the PARAGRAPH you have on there by Tyler Lewis who completely insults the album. That's not over doing it? An entire paragraph for one ONE Negative review?? Yet everything positive has to be short. You say while I added the positive reviews I showed no criticism yet when you showed the negative there wasn't a glimpse of positive showcased. When Tyler Lewis did compliment some songs.Melody Prince$ (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "I do not"? Who's accusing you of removing anything? The main points of a reviewer's criticism should be included. As for the quote, many album articles include an analytical excerpt from a reviewer that exemplifies the general reception of the album. PopMatters gave it a mixed review, and since the album received primarily mixed reviews from critics, an emphasis on mixed reviews in the reception makes sense. And once again, what negative reviews? Dan56 (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not say you accused me of removing or shortening of reviews. Rather you accusing of me of using my own personal feelings. I showcased how I did not. That review from pop matters was negative. You crazy if you think calling an album desperate, soulless, and overly commercial is a mixed review. The album did receive a couple of negative reviews. And you again do not deny over doing the negative reviews. Or mixed as you'll call it.Melody Prince$ (talk) 23:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or as Metacritic called it. And me referring to "personal feelings" is a reference to your edit summary, which is inaccurate. Like I said before, that one review, the mixed one by PopMatters, is used more in depth in the section, as it exemplifies the most critics' criticism. The rest, negative, mixed, or positive, are brought up more brief. The statements you incorporated were less concise, talking about individual songs or "While Usher continues to protest the “new king of pop” accolades critics". If u think overdoing the mixed or negative (however you refer to the less favorable ones) means including more of them, then yes, thats the point if most of the reviews the album received are mixed. Dan56 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Pop Matters does not reflect how most critics feel. That is ludicrous. I simply said that one review was negative not that overall reviews weren't mixed. Your a very gifted talker as I can see how you could manipulate many other people's thinking. Believe it or not that's a compliment. Your paragraph of Pop Matters is over doing it. Also I showed a certain sentence that was written. Yet that is unneeded. Well a paragraph literally insulting the album is over doing it. My edit summary's are not inaccurate. You do over do the negative reviews, shorten the positive, and show personal feelings.Melody Prince$ (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BLOCKED????????????
WHAT?? That person your accusing me of being a sock puppet of is a man!! I'm a female!!