User talk:PhoenixJHudson/Archive 1

IP School Address mix up

 * "The IP address at my school was banned but is linked to my home IP address in some way." What way are the IPs linked?  Tide  rolls  00:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back to me. There is vandalism at my old school which I used to go to and it is linked to my old account which shared the IP address when I edited at the school. Now it is nearly two years later and I was supposed to be unblocked and I am still unable to edit. Someone from the Wikipedia team made an account for me but I still cannot edit. Please unblock me someone. Thankyou. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your response makes no sense. What message are you receiving when you attempt an edit?  Tide  rolls  00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, move, or create them. Editing from 82.24.227.215 has been disabled by HJ Mitchell for the following reason(s):

Block evasion This block has been set to expire: 18:15, 7 August 2012.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.

Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

I'm sorry if I don't make sense. The person who made my account understood. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That IP has not been blocked for two years; and it was not blocked for vandalism and it doesn't appear to be registered to a school. I'm sorry, but I don't see any way I can unblock you based on what you've presented.  Tide  rolls  00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i think you have misunderstood. With my old account, it was blocked for "vandalism" and I used to edit at my home address and school address which was blocked as well. I was unblocked about 6 months ago and was able to edit again but then I was suddenly blocked again because someone at the school (which isn't the IP blocked) vandalised again but the person who blocked me thought it was me. The point is, I have been blocked since 2009 and it is not fair. I served my time and this is just going on and on and on. But now I am asking to be unblocked as it is much easier as I am at college now and am not realted to that school IP address. i think there has been a mix up with school address and school IP based on the block. Please. Just unblock me. I promise I'll do whatever you say, I learnt my lesson years ago. Please. This has gone on for too long. I know you are only going to reply saying you can't do anything about it. But the person who gave me account did so please sort it out. Please. I am an innocent editor. PhoenixJHudson (talk)

Why am I blocked if have I been given a new account then? This doesnt make sense! You can't make an account if you are blocked. I am innocent, what else do I have to do. This is so sad. I just want to edit Wikipedia and make a good change. What's the worst that could happen. I can't believe I am saying this: just give me one chance and if I vandalise heaven forbid, then simply block me and I'll go away forever. I am trying to show you that I am jsut an innocent proper user who just wants to make pages better. Please!!!! How many more years do I have to wait?!! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The exclamation points aren't necessary. I've asked another admin to have a look at this situation and, if need be, I will seek more opinion.   Tide  rolls  01:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that. I was trying to show you how innocent I am and that I am desperate for people to see it so I can get back to editing after nearly 2 years (technically). Can you not tell I am innocent? I see people who vandalise pages all the time writing nasty things and writing lies. I was banned because I forgot to add a reference ONCE. If i was a true vandaliser then I wouldn't even be writing these long statements - I wouldn't care. Do you think I would be sitting here writing all of these innocent statements if I was a true vandaliser, no. It's because I am so innocent and just want to make pages better as I have stated before. Thankyou for looking into it. I know it will probably come to nothing but thanks for trying. I appreciate it. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, you are then.  I'm afraid that creating this account to evade the IP block is not the course to follow.  You should go back to your original account and try to sort things out there.  Tide  rolls  01:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I couldn't even remember my name its been so long. How do I sort things out there. I dob't really want to because I was a bad person then and I am a new better person now so don't want to be associated with that account anymore. Do I have to? Thanks PhoenixJHudson (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the other admin to comment.  Tide  rolls  01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Can you not see it from my point of view though. I am being misleaded. I find it annoying how I get mislead into having a new account and then being told I can't edit. Its not fair. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Who misled you?  Tide  rolls  01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, they didn't give there name but they were very helpful and seemed to understand my situation. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whenever you decide to be truthful I will be ready to listen.  Tide  rolls  01:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon?!!! And yes I am using exclamation marks now because I don't have a clue what you are talking about. I am being reasonable. You only dont believe me because you dont know me. I honestly dont know who sent me that email. They didnt leave their name. This is so unbelievable. And so much for someone else coming to review the situation. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are confused, Rihannano1fan/Iluvrihanna24/PhoenixJHudson. It's true that our tools can't completely block you, but that does not mean that you are actually permitted to edit. You are not. You were so disruptive for so long as Iluvrihanna24 that you have been indefinitely blocked. The comments you have made today as Rihannano1fan make it clear that nothing has changed since your block, so no one is going to unblock you. You are no longer permitted to edit Wikipedia. Please stop trying.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What comments by Rihannano1fan. Why is everyone treating me so unfairly. I have served my time. How can Chris Brown beat Rihanna up and get cleared after 2 years and I can't edit Wikipedia after the same time. I have apologized. Give me a reason why you cannot unban me and then if I vanadalise (WHICH I FREAKING WON'T) just block me and I will go away. i will never stop trying. I will fight until I prove my innocence. I have waited long enough. You would do the same thing. How do you know nothing has changed? You dont know me, people like you just ban people and forget about them like they are just numbers. I am a human being like you who just wants to correct mistakes. I did not vandalise anyway like I am made out. I just didnt add a couple of references. I see edits all the time here calling Rihanna a slag etc and no one clearing it up. Can you see how desperate I am? Any other "vandaliser" would just clear off and not give a s*** but I am a FREAKING INNOCENT EDITOR! What can I do?!!!!! For gods sake. This is so unfair and misleading to innocent people. I am not giving up. Crying here ;)


 * The simple fact that you won't admit to being the same person as Rihannano1fan goes a long way towards explaining why I won't unblock any of your three accounts, and I don' think you will ever find an admin that will. You weren't banned because you forgot to add a reference once. You were blocked because you demonstrated a complete inability to distinguish fansites from reliable sources, chronically added unsourced information, and, when given a final chance, were so eager to add fannish data about Rihanna that you couldn't refrain from adding unsourced material even when you had been warned that doing so would lead to an indefinite block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have admitted to being Rihannano1fan but I couldn't remember my username before I was informed. The point is, I have served my time, I am not denying I vandalised pages in some way but I served my time and then it was suddenly changed to August 2012 when it was supposed to expire last year. If a criminal was charged for 2 years and did his time, you wouldn't expect them to be sentenced again randomnly would you?!!! This is so inhumane! Ctahc the actual vandalisers like people who write "Rihanna's song is a pile of wank". Not someone who forgot to add a reference for something that is true and non-updated. You still won't answer my question either. Why not unblock me and then ban be if I make the slightest mistake?!! WHY NOT?!!! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You weren't blocked for a specific period of time. Rihannano1fan was only blocked for two weeks, but you refused to sit out the block. You created Iluvrihanna24 to get around the block, and Iluvrihanna24 was blocked indefinitely. No one has changed the rules: an "indefinite" block lasts until you convince someone to unblock the account. That hasn't happened. As for having forgotten Rihannano1fan, you edited with that account just yesterday, and a post like this one, where you used "didnt", "i", "resposibilty", "unproffesional", "wikipedia", and "thankyou", combined with several grammar errors all while arguing that you needed to be allowed to edit because you need to correct grammar errors certainly didn't persuade me that you need to be unblocked. The thing you keep missing is that the IP was unblocked simply because we don't normally block IPs forever, because they get reassigned. Once HJ Mitchell figured out that you were editing through the IP, he blocked it again. That wasn't a mistake, that's how it is supposed to work.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am only incorrectly using grammer because this is my talk page not real articles and i am writing really fast, I would preview on articles. Well I'm not going to get to. There was this whole mix up with the expiry date though. It definetely said sometime last year a specific date...2011 but and then I started editing again normally knowing I had served my time and then it got pushed back to this date which was serveal months after - that is only what I find out of order.

BUT:

If you want me to, I will say here and now I will serve my time to show you I can but I would like an expiry time to work towards, pelase. Lets just be done with this at the expiry date so we both know I have matured. Please. I have taken on board what you have said. I am not asking for it to be like next month but sometime in the considerably near future? Thank you.


 * OK, a test. There's a copy of the Rihanna article on your userpage. Have at it. Work on it, and make it as close to a perfect article in your eyes as you can. I'll look at it on 2/21/2012. If you have demonstrated a real ability to improve articles, I'll unblock the Rihannano1fan account with some restrictions. I haven't worked out the details of what those restrictions will be, but they will be similar to the time I unblocked Iluvrihanna24.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god, thank you! (Sorry for the exclamation marks.) I click on my username at the top and it comes up with the Rihanna page but when I click edit, it won't let me. How do I have a go at it? Thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to be because you are blocked at both the username and IP level. Go ahead on your talk page.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right I'm finished. I have worked extremely hard on this over the last week. I have done the best I could of done with the article. Hope you like it. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you ready to check it? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is my page being used by other 'Wikipedians' because I see some of my changes are being used on the official Rihanna page as well. And to be honest I know I am banned but I don't want people using my work if I can't edit, that's not really fair. I am being honest and co-operative and doing everything I am told but kww please review my work seeing as you said you would yesterday and I still have no reply. I'm not being rude, it's just I feel like I am on thin ice and I have to do everything I am told but you don't have to keep to your promises. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I haven't completed my review yet. 24 hours, please.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't mean to be rude. Thank you. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Review issues
Let's talk about a few of the things you changed.

Chris Brown
The section you added on Chris Brown, where you discuss a leak of a police report. Do you understand why this change violated WP:BLP?&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do, the Avoid victimization section. Sorry I did not know. if I were to do it again I would just put that the documents leaked. I only wrote it to give a full account of what happened. Sorry. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair Use photographs
You've added a copyrighted image from Rihanna's video. Please look at the 10 numbered rules in WP:NFCC and explain how your usage passes all ten of the restrictions. I'm especially interested in WP:NFCC.&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I only copied it from both the single's pages so if they are used there then they can't be copyright. I thought videos could be used anyway. Also, you haven't commented on the other pictures I added from other pages so why just the videos? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Legacy
How can a young performer that is still currently active have a "legacy"? Can you think of a few different words that might say what you actually meant?&mdash;Kww(talk) 11:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think she deserves a legacy because Beyonce and Eminem have one on their pages and they aren't exactly old. Plus, Rihanna ahs sold more than Beyonce and the same as Eminem and has broken many more awards. That's what is special about Rihanna she has done so much in such a short time. Also, I don't think almost seven years is that much of a short time. Also, all of the other performers who have legacies were not thrust into the public eye at the age of 16. That's why.

There isn't a section for her records and achievements, so if this isn't accepted then maybe rename the heading to 'Records and Achievements' as she is notable for breaking many records. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Future
I thought I tried really hard on the page you gave me and it took me a long time to complete. I think I used exsquisite grammer and corrected many mistakes too.

I added reliable and note-worthy information and updated sections including: the profile picture as she has blonde hair now and the previous picture was not very flattering, singles history, sales sold, awards, chartings, tour dates, tattoos, perfume, the R logo, and latest news. Also Rihanna has a music section and is quite well known for her videos as they are very controversial and visual.

Also, I removed links to Wiki pages that had already been linked to avoid repetition. In addition, I deleted dead links/references.

I think if I were to be unbanned I can see many othor mistakes in other pages and dead links and so on that need major updating. So have I done well or not enough? Please let me know so I don't have to get my hopes up.

Thank you for the opportunity. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't failed. I'd like you to try to answer my question about NFCC above a little better. One of the things that you have had trouble with in the past is images, and you made a mistake here. I'm not worried so much about making a mistake, I'm worried about whether you can learn from them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course I will learn, anything to get back on Wikipedia. I don't really understand your question or how I copyrighted. I read the page and I can't see something that fits the reason you are giving. Can you explain why it is copyright if it is on another page? Thanks. But yes, when I know why it is wrong to use it I will of known not to do it again. I only used the picture as it was already accepted on another page. Thanks. P.S. Do you mean if I don't understand why it is copyright then I won't be able to edit again, because I am confused. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't understand my explanation, then we will have some problems, yes, because copyrights are very important. Copyright violations are the fastest way to get blocked, so we want to make sure that doesn't happen. It is a copyrighted image. Look at File:Rihanna rockstar 101.jpg (which you wrote yourself). You wrote that the image was copyrighted, and belongs to Def Jam records. That's because the music video is the property of Def Jam records, so any picture you take from it is theirs. Do you follow that so far?&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry I'm getting in a bit of a state because I don't want to say anything wrong. I do understand now. It was so long ago that I didn't even realise the image was by me. Shouldn't the image of been deleted on the Rockstar 101 page ages ago if it was copyrighted though. But YES I do understand it is copyrighted.

But why is this allowed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:We_found_love_ss1.jpg And not this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rihanna_rockstar_101.jpg

Because they are both screenshots from YouTube. God, I'm really scared that if I don't completely understand I am annoying you. I really do understand the meanings of copyright and that you can't just pick up any image from the internet and publish it because it belongs to someone else. But I am just following other pages for what I think is allowed. But I am learning from you and if I was unbanned I wouldn't do anything I know I am not allowed to without querying it on the talk page or with you first. Can you please just explain to me what the difference is between those two files? Because it says on more Rihanna pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hate_that_i_love_you_screenshot.png / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rihanna-you-da-one-video-500x322.jpg):

This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted music video or promotional video for a music artist, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the producers of the video and possibly also by the music artist. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots.

And that is a copyrighted screenshot like the one from Rockstar 101. I really do not understand the difference. Please don't shout at me. I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand.

Thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not annoyed. I'm glad you are talking about it. This is the kind of thing that got you in trouble before, and I want to make sure it doesn't get repeated. The difference is in the use of the image. It was OK to use file:Rihanna_rockstar_101.jpg in the Rockstar 101 article. It isn't OK to use it on Rihanna. To use a copyrighted image, the image has to pass all ten rules in WP:NFCC. Please read over WP:NFCC, and see if you can explain why the image passes WP:NFCC when the topic is the video, but doesn't pass WP:NFCC when the topic is the person.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes I get it now. It passes the WP:NFCC because the copyrighted image of the video helps explain the context in the video section page on Rihanna's single pages but does not significantly increase the readers' understanding on the Rihanna page as the context is of Rihanna herself not the video. I think I understand it definitely now. Is that right? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. OK, I'll unblock Rihannano1fan with these restrictions:
 * No use of other accounts and no anonymous editing. You can only edit using the Rihannano1fan account.
 * No undoing reversions. If another editor removes something you have added, you can not restore the material yourself. If you feel that it really needs to go back, you will need to convince someone else that your edit is correct.
 * No adding material without sources. If you add a statement to an article, it must be sourced.
 * I'll block you a week for the first violation, a month for the second, and you'll be back to indefinite on the third.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! (Sorry for the exclamation marks) Finally, can I merge the article I made with the current Rihanna article or did you not like it. Personally, I did correct many mistakes and added new information. Did you want to merge it? Thanks again. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Final queries:

1) Is there a reason why it is the Rihannano1fan account. Can it not be PhoenixJHudson because that's the one that I feel I have changed and am a better person. The Rihannano1fan account reminds me of when I vandalised. 2) When will I be able to edit. I just logged into my other account and there is no expiry date. 3) About the added information without a source, can I add information in the main top part. Like on the Rihanna article, there are no references in that summary in the top.

Thanks again. I am going now to bed but I will reply in the morning. Thank you. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can unblock this one, but I will put a link in your block log connecting to the other accounts. As for information in the lead, the only time information should be in the lead without a reference is if it is already in the article with a reference. You cannot just add information to the lead without it being sourced in the article. I'll unblock after you agree.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay sure, I agree. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked
Minor recommendations from me: Just recommendations, like I said. If you feel you're getting in trouble anywhere and Kww isn't around, you can try and ping me. Good luck, Amalthea  15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) You saved a lot of edits when you improved the article on your page, and it was rather hard to follow them. It helps your fellow editors understand your changes if you 1) always leave an edit summary summarizing your changes and explaining why you made them, and 2) try to bundle similar changes into one actual edit (e.g. all edits of one type, or all rewording in one paragraph)
 * 2) Related to the above, please preview your changes with the Show preview and Show changes buttons before you save them. That way, you would have seen that, and you would have noticed the two typos from  and not have needed to make   to fix them. WP:TWWPK.
 * 3) You linked the words gold and platinum, but those links don't really go where you think they do.
 * 4) In general, not every media outlet of a person needs to be linked as an official link -- to the contrary actually, see WP:ELOFFICIAL. In case of the article at hand, I think the two existing ones are quite sufficient, Twitter/Facebook are in my opinion not necessary or helpful.
 * 5) Lastly, try to avoid thinking that the Rihanna article "" anything. Wikipedia articles aren't a competition, only guideline for adding such material should be whether it is verifiable and due. As every one of us knows, it can be difficult to hold back on the article of a topic you like, but it's necessary, and you need to be conscious of that. The goal is always to build a comprehensive and neutral article.

Thank You
I just want to say a final thank you to the members who have listened to me Kww and Amalthea. I will follow your tips and rules and try to be a much better editor. Thanks for the opportunity, I really appreciate it. Thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One Week Block
[This edit] violates your restrictions. You added peaks that were not supported by the sources in the article, and, worse yet, removed citations that were needed to support the material in the article. http://www.ultratop.be/nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Drake+feat.+Rihanna&titel=Take+Care&cat=s for example, shows "Take Care" reaching a position of 8 on the Flemish Tip chart, meaning that it never entered the main chart. You, however, inserted a "64" for no apparent reason.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Kww, I know exactly what you said please please please don't ban me. I know you said if I broke the restrictions but I added 64 because the main Belgium chart is the top 50 and the peak of the Take Care page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Care_(song) says 14 so I added them together. So the actual Take Care page was not updated. You say it never entered the main page but I could argue that Raining Men never entered the Billboard Hot 100. But I have updated We Found Love, You Da One and Talk That Talk pages and Take Care was next so I would of later fixed that. I removed the sources because they were not needed to source the releases of the songs. I'm really sorry it was just one little mistake and you could see how I made it, I'm not vandalising. Please don't ban me, I had my valid reasons for chagning it. I think it is a very valid excuse next to all of the other contributions I have made. I have worked really hard. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC) Did you see all the things I fixed: dead links, empty references, chart peaks etc. They really outweigh the one mistake. How can people just write nasty things about Rihanna and write rubbish on pages and not get banned for one week and I do? When will this one week, one month, indefinate thing be over because I feel really stressed and worried if I make any little mistake.
 * It will be over in not less than a year. That's how long an editing probation normally lasts. And yes, they are a pain: think how little fun it is for me to have to check every edit you make for the next 12 months.
 * As for that edit, please go through the figures you removed sources for and show me where you can find the figure in a source that you left in the article. I spot checked and couldn't find any of them. If you can show me that I'm wrong, and all those figures were available in the source for the column, I'll lift the block early.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionally, don't add figures on two charts together that way. Despite what some people thing, the tipparade and Bubbling Under charts are not extensions of the main chart, and it violates WP:SYNTH to add them together that way.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And how is 50+8 "64", anyway? Please don't tell me that you were copying figures from one Wikipedia article to another without checking them against sources.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To the first point, to start with I don't think you should of reverted the whole edit because a lot of it is true. You reverted that We Found Love is her biggest single in the US and it now says it isnt. There is also a mistake on Raining Men where it says "a Urban" when it should be "an Urban" whih I did edit. For the FRA edit for Loud certification, that was a a correct reference. I also provided a reference and corrected Loud's worldwide sales. It has sold six million nowhere near eight. The previous reference had extremely inflated sales. You also reverted the 'Do Ya Thang' change back to 'Do Ya Thing'. I deleted the Raining Men soruce because it does not need one. You could argue that all the singles need a source to appear on the page, but they dont so therefore neither does this. The same applies to Talk That Talk's reference, Take Care's and Princess of China. I did make a mistake on deleting the references for Take Care and I now see it should of been included on th 81 reference for Peak chart positions for featured singles in Canada. The same for the deleted Fly reference and the UK Take Care peak reference. I only deleted them because I thought if the others don't need references then neither do these. I didn't remove the reference for Raining Men's chart peak, I put it into the header of the UK positions to make the chart look tidier.

To the second point why can there be a figure '142' for Raining Men but when I add an extension on a chart it is violation? I got 64 as yes I looked on the Take Care page and it said 14 but now it has been changed to 8 by you. Do you really think I would risk my ban, you know how much I want to edit and how hard I have worked. I wouldn't just get it out of nowhere.

God, I can see where I went wrong now, I should of merged the references into the pre-made sections for the featured artist country charts. Sorry I admit I made a mistake and I know I have to be banned now because I can't give you a proper valid reason for deleting the chart peak references. I know I have an editing warning but I just think its a tiny bit frustrating when you could just revert that edit and leave it at that because I am willing to admit I made the mistake and you can see how much I had already done that was good. Do you know how many references I fixed on the You Da One page. Nearly all of those references were broken and had no title. I'm just really dissapointed and I appreciate that it is a pain for you too. I knew I'd get banned. Sorry. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The 142 isn't formed by adding two different charts together. The UK chart is published in different versions, some of which extend to 200. The Tipparade chart is a chart of wholesale shipments, which isn't an extension of the main chart. Similarly, Billboard's "Bubbling Under" charts are only a chart of songs that have never entered the Top 100. Because you can't fall from the Hot 100 to the Bubbling Under, the Bubbling Under charts don't really extend the Hot 100 charts. I'll show good faith and cut your block to 72 hours. Please be more careful when you return.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Do you know what, you are really nice when you get to know you. Thanks. I promise you I will never make the same mistake again. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I was just wondering is the Rihanna page you gave me gone forever or can I get it back because when I get unblocked, I was going to incorporate some of the points I made into the current article. I will discuss with you first what to put in though. Thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved it to a subpage in your userspace: User:PhoenixJHudson/Rihanna. Sorry, I mentioned it in the edit summary so you would find it, but I should have left a note here as well. You could also have found it in the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PhoenixJHudson&offset=20120223162000&limit=20&action=history history of this talk page] of course, or in [ your contributions], the edits are still right where you made them. Amalthea  14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * We Found Love (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to The X Factor, IRMA and ARIA


 * You Da One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to IRMA and ARIA

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I will do that right now. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC) I can't now because I've been banned.

Fixed them. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You Da One
Hey there :) I see we are the only ones working on the article at the moment. Good on us :) Let's try get it to Good Article status and keep an eye out for vandalism. Much love - Marky01 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Aw lol! Hi you seem nice, yes we seem to be the only ones lol. Don't you just hate it when people ruin pages? I think we are doing great though. I have fixed all the references and just updated the charts which should of been updated ages ago. So glad I'm unbanned now to update! Is it not good article status already. There isn't anything I can see wrong with it. How do we get it checked for the status? Much love too! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind but I just changed one of your edits by removing the box of quote as the section is too small for it to look correct in its position. Great work finding the quote though! Sorry, I feel really bad as we have just become friends. :( PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting
Hey kww, you told me to tell you that I cannot revert if someone reverts my edit. So please can you do it for me. I updated the Rihanna page and they removed some of the changes I made which I thought were completely understandable. I changed the picture as she has blonde hair now that was already included on the page and they called it "not nice" when it was already on the page and she has blonde hair now not brown. Also I added a title for The R Logo as it is part of her Artistry. It needs to be there as it is nowhere else and has been part of Rihanna since 2009 so is very defining. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, are you being serious? Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 21:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? What's that supposed to mean. Don't just drop patronising comments on my page. You don't even know the conversation me and Kww had so go away. You were the one who reverted my edit in the first place, which there was no need for. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Try the article talk page first. If people are completely unreasonable, I may come to your rescue from time to time, but part of the reason for this restriction is to get you to work with other editors that are interested in Rihanna. It defeats the purpose if you just ask me to do it and I do.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you asked me to tell you. Won't Calvin just not listen to me if I write it on the talk page? Anyway I will. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it's so obvious you are talking about me. And don't be rude to me either. You're already in a fragile situation. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 21:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Go away I have no interest in talking to you, stay away from me and my page. You're just being immature by starting a conversation with me with "lol". PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Careful. I'm not being immature, I'm educating you on your incorrect and hot-handed edits. I have 25 GA articles which I have completely re-written and promoted, I think I know how to edit. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 21:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't if you are posting lol on someone's page. Don't threaten me, just leave me alone. I'm not vandalising pages. How was my picture of Rihanna with blonde hair an incorrect edit? She has blonde hair now. God sake stop picking on me and leave me alone. Don't reply, get the hint, go away. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to work on your people skills. We are a community, we all edit here together, on the same articles in the same encyclopedia. If we have disagreements about content, we focus on content, not editors, and try to find WP:CONSENSUS by discussing the merits of changes on the respective article talk pages (WP:BRD). Do that, please. There is no hurry. Convince editors on the article talk page that your changes improve the article. Don't just ask for reverts. And no, that's not picking on you. I do that, too, e.g. just now when I removed a rumored single and was reverted, I did not re-revert but opened a talk page discussion and invited the other editor to comment even though I'm convinced I'm right. Amalthea  21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jivesh Here
Hi. My name is Jivesh. I understand what you may be going through because the same happens to everyone when they are a newcomer on Wikipedia. I have seen your edits, or should I say I have been following what you whatever edit closely. And yes, you are a very good beginner. But there are certain things you may need to overcome. I am willing to help you. You may reply here itself if you want. Don't be discouraged, what is happening to you also happened to me. Regards. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 04:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks xx PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Banned again?!
This is ridiculous! Why have you banned me Kww? I didn't know I wasn't allowed to put parts of my work back in not just press the undo button. That's not my fault, you should of been more specific. God I never get to show what I can really do because Clavin either deletes it or I always get blocked. Yes last time I took responsibility because I made the mistake but I didn't break my violation rules this time. I just want to edit. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: Just seen that someone has reverted all of my reasonable edits on the Rihanna page too. I don't even feel like coming on her anymore. It's like there's a set number of people who just CONTROL everything on here and ave their versions of pages only. Wikipedia is about everyone making an effort to make pages better. And all everyone is doing is reverting my good edits. FOR GOD SAKE! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You should NOT think of leaving permanently. We all make mistakes in the beginning. Don't be discouraged. It happens to everyone, Look at mine. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 16:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't see people getting banned for writing Rihanna is a slag on one of her pages. I served my time ages ago and this is just going on and on and on. With Calvin added into the mix and everyone else deleting perfectly good edits that add great information to pages for no reason is really annoying me. I can't be bothered to fight anymore and be treated like some sort of vandaliser. No one knows all the work I have done and how much time I have spent on these articles. I'm just tired. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Think over it again. You are a good contributor. You and Calvin should have a nice calm discussion. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I am but I've just seen yet another edit that Calvin has reverted on We Found Love after all I did was fix disambiguation pages - which I was bloody told to do! THIS IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON ME! I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt but everytime I edit there is always his name above mine reverting it, I expect it now! The only reason he gave was "No." How bloody immature is that. I'm getting more and more irrate by the minute. Someone should ban Calvin for being such an annoying and abusive editor towards me. Yes go on Calvin come in here and say "Are you joking" again because you know what you are doing purposely trying to wind me up. What have you bloody got against me you idiot!!! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You should not call people idiot or stupid etc. Be careful my friend. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 17:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Calm down.
 * On We Found Love Calvin selectively undid the following one edit of yours: "". I don't know why, but it had nothing to do with disambiguation pages. All your other changes are still there.
 * I agree that an edit summary merely saying "No" is not at all helpful. Nonetheless, Calvin is an active editor in the same area you want to be active in. You have to find a way to collaborate on the same articles. Like I said above, this is a community, articles are edited by everyone, and WP:CONSENSUS rules. Other editors have worked for years on articles you want to change. Their opinions matter as much as yours. If you cannot get yourself to submit to discussion and consensus then this will not work out. If you react to reverts by insulting the other editor and desiring to re-revert then this will not work out.
 * You also must accept that your edits are scrutinized, especially now. You are in the weaker position here, you have just come back from a long block. There is no "I served my time" because the function of a block is not punishment. One problem that led to your block was disruptive conduct, and you must show that your conduct has improved, that you can edit constructively as part of a community. That must be your main objective now, not be to make all the improvements you can to all the articles on topics you like. Take it slowly. Be nice and listen to other editors. Accept that you will not always have your way. You need to be able to rationally and civilly discuss disputes or this will not work out.
 * Amalthea 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If another editor removes something you have added, you can not restore the material yourself.
That's what you agreed to. In this edit you inserted a large section about Rihanna's tattoos. In this edit Calvin999 removed it. In this edit you restored it.

Your editing restrictions are very simple. What's the problem?&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh sorry I thought you meant I wasn't allowed to hit the "undo" button not just replace some of the things deleted. Sorry, I understand. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you could have interpreted a sentence like "If another editor removes something you have added, you can not restore the material yourself" as being limited to undo buttons. It doesn't say anything about undo buttons. I haven't used the word "undo button" anywhere in the discussion. Per our original agreement, I should have blocked you for a month. Be pleased that it's just a week.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're back I see
This is unacceptable. No personals attacks, ever - WP:No personal attacks. I had you banned on 10 different accounts and you haven't learned a thing. This is one of the most basic rules and you're not even able to comprehend that. You need to calm down, read rules, and stop complaining if you truly want to contribute to this encyclopedia. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Calvin
I'd like to make a complaint against user User:Calvin999 as he is constantly reverting my edits and victimizing me. I don't care what you've got to say Calvin because I know you are going to reply to this. I have taken user's comments on board and used talk pages for this but I have just seen today that Calvin has reverted an edit which made the Chart section much tidier and neater and actually corrected the text. His reason was "no need for sub sections at all. it's not a big section and does not warrant it." Fair enough but don't revert my whole edit, just take the paragraph gaps out. I'm fed up of being personally insulted by this user, he is constantly reverting all of my edits to get to me and was doing this before I got unblocked too and I've had enough of it! I am not being immature I just wish someone would tell this god damn idiot to leave my constructive edits alone. I am actually fixing these pages. If I was allowed to revert then I would of done it by now. You tell me what is wrong with this edit? .

1) I changed the digit format for exaple number-1 to number-one. 2) I put the regions into groups and actually in order. 3) Added key certifications and further European charts.

Besides, I was going to add more to it today if he'd of given me a damn chance!

Calvin just stop being so annoying and let me edit pages in peace. Don't reply to this I don't want to know, you know exactly what you are doing. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are making edits which are wrong. You changed chart tables in one tables for years which overlap, for example 2011-12. You are not supposed to do this, hence why they were in separate tables in the first place. You put chart positions into peak positions for each year. If a song peaked in Australia for example at number 6 in 2011, it goes into a 2011 table. If the same song peaked at number 4 in the UK in 2012, then it goes into a 2012 table. Understand? Also, you removed certifications from info boxes; there was no reason to remove and they are allowed to be there. I'm not insulting you, you are just doing things wrong. Instead of playing the pity party, learn from your mistakes. I was like you when I first started editing, and I took notice of what other people were telling me. I am still learning now, you never stop. With regard to the LTWYL edit you just pointed out, there is no need to put them into group subsections. You won't know because you haven't been following Wikipedian Penguin's edits, but he has spent literally months perfecting the article to nominate it for FA. He knows what he is doing with the article and it was completely unnecessary. He has structured the Chart performance perfectly fine. What you need to learn is not to make such drastic edits. Use the article's talk page! It's what it is for! Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

1) I changed the chart tables as on the Talk That Talk and You Da One pages they are merged . I am doing these things for a reason not just because I want it that way, yes? I get what you mean about the seperate tables, I just made all the articles from Talk That Talk the same. I removed certifications from info boxes again to make all Rihanna articles the same. Looking back on them, they look messy. I'm just trying to make the articles look the same. The certifications are already on those pages and if they aren't on the latest ones, they shouldn't be on those.
 * Articles don't all have to be identical. The ones with separate chart tables and ones with certifications are the articles which are GA, do you know what a GA is? The ones without are the articles which are in bad condition. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

2) I appreciate that that user spent ages editing the chart performance section of LTWYL but the grammar was appalling. You don't write number-1 or number 7 on a page, it is number-one and number seven.
 * It's of FA level, and it is anything but appalling. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"The single rose from number 13 to number 8 on the Billboard Pop Songs in its fourth consecutive week and became Eminem's ninth and Rihanna's fifteenth top-10 song"

That is so bad. It should be:

"The single rose from number thirteen to number eight on the Billboard Pop Songs chart in its fourth week, becoming Eminem's ninth and Rihanna's fifteenth top-ten single."
 * Which is where you are wrong. Chart positions above 10 are to be written numerically. Once again, you wouldn't have known this as you haven't reader WP:NUMBERS.

3) Why can no one see I am trying to help. You've got to admit that grammar is bad and I am correcting things for good reason. I am sorry if I argue with other members but I am defensive when I am purposely trying to help. Why is it okay for other people to just completely change my page when I work hours on them, but when I actually correct pages they are immediatly discounted? I think people are just trying to get rid of me because they have pre-conceptions of me when I have changed from the past. I don't vandalise, I just correct pages. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We understand that you are trying to be constructive, but at the same time, the vast majority of your edits are not constructive, and some of which are completely wrong (such as the merging of tables). This is how you will learn, through your mistakes. "Why is it okay for other people to just completely change my page when I work hours on them," this is WP:OWN, they are not your pages or articles. I didn't even know you had been blocked on here for 2 years before, so I had no pre-conceptions of you; you was just making unconstructive edits and you needed to be stopped and told. You need to realise that your "I just corrected pages" statement is wrong, because your edits were not correct. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I put my hands up I'm sorry. Can we start fresh if I do everything you say and take it on board? Just one question: is there any way I can see what pages are GA and what aren't? Is there a symbol or notice? Thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I just saw that Only Girl is a good article and uses word-digits instead of numbers. Also most other Wikipedia articles I have seen use the word method too. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only Girl was one of the first ones I did, I plan on copy-editing it. GA's have a little green icon on the top right hand corner of the article. S&M (song) is a GA, but Who's That Chick? is not. Look at the difference. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. And what is copy-editing? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just when you take a poorly written article and edit it to bring it up to a decent standard, for GA or FA for example. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But Only Girl is a GA article? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I am better than I was 7 months ago. Besides, GA's don't stay as they are when passed. You have to maintain them and make sure things don't get changed by IPs etc. or unsourced info. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One more question: we have to establish whether when writing: number-one, top-five, top-ten; do we use the hyphen? Because on Pon De Replay (GA) there are no hyphens and on Only Girl (GA) there is. I am confused. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't. Once again, I will be copy-editing the article. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So am I allowed to edit anything when I am unblocked or are you just going to do all of it?
 * As long as things are constructive, you can edit any article on Wikipedia. But drastic things should be discussed first. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I completely understand that. Thanks for your help and co-operation. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally a civilized discussion. :) Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 19:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know right. It's so refreshing.


 * Yes. By the way, are you on UKMix? Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 19:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my god how did you know that, thats so scary! Well I was but I was banned but it was ages ago and they won't unban me, its so annoying! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yesterday I saw a comment posted by someone called "Phoenix83" and so I thought it was you. I was also banned ages ago. Lol. I am on atrl.net but I have recently been banned for 30 days as I defended my queen in a poll. I cannot stand anyone saying shit about Beyonce. :) Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence! But my name is 24RudeBoi. I'm also banned on ATRL but that too wont let me back on! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Has the "number x" dispute been resolved here? I could explain if it has not. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Number x dispute? Please explain further, thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The dispute regarding the number formatting in "Love the Way You Lie"? — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  19:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no it was not solved. I changed the Chart performance article as personally, I thought the number formatting was wrong compared to other articles. I changed it to this: from this but it was changed back to this: . The reason was "no need for spacing" but the current one still has that spacing and the number format is wrong. it should be fore example: number seventeen, not number 17; and a seven week run, not a 7-week run. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to clarify: according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style's dates and numbers guideline, comparable quantities/numbers should be consistently written as figures or words. Generally, numbers between &minus;9 and 9 are written as words. However, with comparable statistics like chart positions and weeks, one consistent format has to be chosen: either words or figures/numerals. Thus, I have chosen to write all the chart position and week values as numerals (1, 2, 3 as opposed to one, two, three). Either way (numeral or word) is fine with Wikipedia and there is no concrete rule against numerals. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Rihanna, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Song of the Year, Rated R and Take a Bow (song) (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Calvin (again)
Right. Other users are starting to notice your victimization now towards me. You are reverting all edits made by me which are perfectly constructive and reliable. There are other edits with Twitter as sources and other members have stated that your reversion was no nesseccary. Where can I go to report this person, whenever I moan I just get told to sort it out but this user is repeatedly victimizing me and I've had enough of it. It's like me in a classroom and a teahcer just repeatedly not letting me submit my ideas, it's just not fair. Can someone please do something about this user, try and restrict him from making contact with me? Why won't you just stop Calvin? What is your problem? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't report him, he hasn't really done anything wrong. Example: 1 "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." Calvin wrote the article, it is his choice if numbers are written as 1 or one. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 20:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthday_Cake_(song)&curid=34316250&diff=480543716&oldid=480542196 I don't have a problem with this. It's simply an update from future to present. It's the first positively constructive edit you have done which has no mistakes.] Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you want a medal? My other edits have been fine. Like this one which had nothing wrong with it. Bad grammar: "Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake" you don't put that. Rather: "Cake" multiple times sounds so much more professional. Anyway I'm going to leave Wikipedia now because I can't deal with you. I hope you find this funny and think you've won because you couldn't leave me alone. Thanks. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG, it's not bad grammar, it's a lyric! It's what she sings! You still have so much to learn. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 20:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes she sings the word "Cake" MULTIPLE TIMES! She doesn't sing Cake that many times, she sings it 15. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's lifted from a source! It's was written by a critic! This is what I mean, you have so much to learn. We used what the critics say, not what we feel. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 20:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Where Have You Been. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Where_Have_You_Been&curid=33657463&diff=480546205&oldid=480454417 Yeah, really looks like I'm the insulting one. Watch your tongue]'' Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 20:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG don't patronise me with that civi warning. Please explain how it is a joke edit to fix a reference. Are you on drugs or something? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't your edit, it was your edit summary. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 20:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was an unhelpful edit summary, but this warning was inappropriate. I don't see the joke. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  21:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right Penguin, I don't see the joke either... Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 21:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What was the purpose of this warning then? Uw-joke1 isn't for this. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  21:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You didn't catch my sarcasm. I didn't find his edit summary in relation to other things amusing. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Calvin he's actually sticking up for me not you like many other users. ;) PhoenixJHudson (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just commenting. To be fair, Iluvrihanna, you can't keep filing complaints on Calvin and treating him like he's your worst enemy. The encyclopedia is collaborative, and perhaps you've made several wrong edits. That's OK, as long as you learn from them, which hopefully you are. Calvin's revert summaries may not be very helpful or supportive, but neither can you say he's "on drugs or something". I don't want to come off as insulting, and you're a good-faith editor and deserve the level of respect of a good-faith editor, but you should be paying that level of respect to others too. If you need help, I'm available. — WP: PENGUIN  · [ TALK ]  15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks it's just he's always there after I edit something reasonably and always reverts my edit, that is not an exaggeration! I don't see what is wrong with some of my edits to be honest, I'm not vandalising, I'm not forgetting to use reliable references, I'm not posting untrue information. He just comes across as though its HIS articles. I agree it is a collaborative encyclopedia so why is he nt giving me a fair opportunity? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have good reason to be watchful of your edits, you have a horrific past history being a sock. And you still haven't learnt anything. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes because my edits are full of vandalism aren't they?! You need to learn to let the past go, I have learnt from my mistakes. None of my edits have produced vandalism, they have all been constructive. I have totally revamped some pages and made them proper articles in comparison to others. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never said you have vandalised (on this account), I have repeatedly said that. However, the vast majority of your edits were not constructive. You haven't learnt from your mistakes, you are still playing the "Calvin is so horrible blah blah blah" card, like you did on your other account. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 18:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol, because you are! You revert every single one of my edits. No one else has a problem with them. They ARE constructive. What aren't constructive about them? I correct grammar mistakes, update information and correct layouts. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not, you are just trying to shift blame because you won't recognise your own (multiple) failings. Other editors are right about you, you are so blinkard that you cana't accept when you are wrong. Look at how many editors have reverted you. Doesn't that tell you something? Take the hints. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of you are fans of Rihanna and you both want to improve her articles. You two must make efforts to get along. Please. Jivesh 1205 (Talk) 18:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have every intention to be friends with Calvin if he just minimized reverting all of my edits and gave me a little space to edit and freedom like I give him. Thanks Jivesh. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, you have to realise that because of your past, people are not going to forget it that easily, and will be watching every edit you make. Surely you understand that. You will earn your freedom and respect from other editors when you change your attitude and get on with it. I have freedom because I have earned it, I wasn't a good editor when I first started, but you have to learn from mistakes and listen to others. I still learn from others now, you don't ever stop. So, take this as "friendly" advice, change you attitude and give people reason to believe that you perhaps a good editor and to forget about the past. Until you do that, you will continue to be watched by multiple editors, like you are now. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Unblock conditions violated/Not getting the point, as you did at Birthday Cake (song). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are


 * 1) In violation of unblock conditions per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthday_Cake_%28song%29&action=history
 * 2) You are failing to get the point of the blocks (here & here)
 * I gave you the original unblock and you said you "have grown up completely", this doesn't look to be the case. A reminder that you may not create any additional accounts or use IPs to continue editing. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  19:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked DeltaQuad to show precisely which sequence of edits violated PhoenixJHudson's editing restrictions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wondering why I am blocked because I did not violate any of my restrictions. I did not undo edits, I did not vandalise, I used references...so what did I do? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly repeated this edit, so you really did commit a violation. I'm not happy with the indefinite block, but we are discussing what to do about that situation. It doesn't really make any difference until April 7.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what was wrong with the edit? I didn't vandalize? I didn't repeat the dit, I did it once. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Addition one, Calvin reverted because of WP:MOS violations, addition of the exact same edit two, which = violation of your editing restrictions. Hope that clears it up. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 20:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As CKLakeshade explained above, you were in violation of your restriction, not just once, but twice and that's only what I looked into. The second violation was & . Now there is also a lengthy discussion that happened at my talkpage about this block, and I suggest that you take a look over it. You really need to be aware of your unblock restrictions before you edit. The history tab on the page is there for a reason. If you need to go back and look, do so, don't edit blind. It's the same as going out driving blind, you know where all the roads are (your restrictions), but you have no clue where the other cars are (other editors) or where the debris you just ran over (your edits) are. I also expect at least one of the two admins on my page (if not both) to come back and talk with you about this further. But for now, in assumption of good faith that you actually will edit with your restrictions in mind, I have reduced your block to a month for clearing up whatever issue there is in editing blind. --  DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  12:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Preparing for your block expiration
Your block is now set to expire on April 7. That's about 4 weeks away, but I'd like to spend the time working out how to get you to survive your next unblock. By agreement, you only have one chance left. There are two things you have been doing that have been aggravating the trouble: you make edits that you should know in advance will get reverted, and then you redo them after being reverted.

Let's talk a bit about the first issue. After having it reverted in several articles, why did you continue to change numbers from numeric form to written form? What made you think that if you kept doing the same thing, other editors would allow the change to stand? Especially given what it says at WP:ORDINAL:"Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." You do see that means that if a song rises to positions like 1, 3, or 5 on some charts(where virtually everyone uses the figure), that we then must discuss positions 67 and 93 on other charts, not sixty-seven and ninety-three?&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because Wiki Pengiun stated that "Generally, numbers between −9 and 9 are written as words. However, with comparable statistics like chart positions and weeks, one consistent format has to be chosen: either words or figures/numerals. Thus, I have chosen to write all the chart position and week values as numerals (1, 2, 3 as opposed to one, two, three)."

So there needs to be a form agreed, it is so confusing. I don't know which one to put anymore, and then I get in trouble for not writing the correct format. I am really trying t be good, it's just Calvin is extremely persistant in reverting my edits. Such as this one: as opposed to this current version:

I MEAN REALLY?!!! Is my edit that bad that you have to replace it with an absolutely terrible reversion? You probably have a rock solid explanation for it but I swear I am being victimized! Anyone can see all the mistakes that people have clearly reverted for no reason! I'll list them now:


 * There is no description for Live Your Life.
 * The notes section looks messy. Some say where the video was shot, some say awards, some say parts of the synopsis. I changed it to synopsis and then people can click on the rticle's page if they want to find out where it was shot.
 * The grammar is absolutely APPALLING!

"It contains reference to the 1971 film"
 * "Rihanna is seen commanding an army while wearing a stylized military costumes"
 * "It also makes references to some artist including"
 * "French supermodel Laetitia Casta makes cameo appearance"
 * "David Guetta makes cameo appearance"
 * "It features Rihanna standing on a hillside with life size flowers"
 * "The video is consisted of strobe-lit images"
 * The video is footage of Rihanna's lifetime that she had"
 * "January, 2011, however,"
 * All of them are featured various dance sequences"
 * "It features Rihanna hanging out with her friends" (Should be socializing)
 * "Rihanna's and Ne-Yo's characters" (Should be Rihanna and Ne-Yo's)
 * "Features a photography-based, late-'70s/ early-'80s" situation" (WHAT?!!)
 * "Justin Timberlake makes cameo appearance" (Justin Timberlake makes a cameo appearance)
 * "The theme of the video is inspired from the old-school hip-hop"
 * "Rihanna is seen interviewing her love interest, while sitting on a table" (OMG really?! She is not interviewing him and do you really think she is sitting on a table?!)
 * "The video was shot as skit" (The video was shot as a skit)


 * Incorrect information


 * The video is set in a club and features Rihanna together with her friends dancing on a platform while also executing some belly dance moves" Her friends don't dance on the podium.


 * Limited information


 * A post-apocalyptic inspired video, shot in Queens, New York. (My edit explained much more, but not too much)
 * I have no idea why someone removed some of my Commercials additions either, with valuably reliable sources. David Gaddie is not centered, Capital FM and Reb'l Fleur are not italicized. Also, a user removed Loud Tour from video albums, when I provided a reliable source for it. It is confirmed to be released, that's why i wrote TBA.
 * I also don't know why someone removed the decade headings and featured artist section. It is much clearer instead of being included in Rihanna's solo videography. Also, the decades were there before I made the edit so someone is just randomnly reverting now.

This is ridiculous. I even edited down the synopsis edits I made after a user told me to. Do you know why I feel victimized now. Can you see Iam trying to make articles better. I think the mistake you are making is reverting my whole edit instead of just partially removing some things.


 * Let's leave all of that out of the discussion, and I mean all of it. If your block expires and you just start changing everything in sight because you believe your version to be better, then you'll get blocked again within hours. Let's get back to my original question: you made the same kind of change multiple times, including doing it twice to the same article. You knew it had been reverted before. You knew that if you did it twice, you would be blocked for a month. Why did you do it?&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to give you ana nswer because you just completely ignored what I just spent ages writing. Because you know its true. Why can no one just see that the page was rubbish and I amde it better. You are just a bad editor letting that happen as the people who reverted it. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Treating people that are trying to help that way isn't going to get you anywhere. The point I am trying to make is that even if you make the page perfect in your eyes, it does no good if other people undo it. Part of that is, indeed, Calvin999's fault. I won't deny that. A large part of it is yours, though: you made the same kind of change multiple times, including doing it twice to the same article. You knew it had been reverted before. You knew that your change had no chance of lasting. Why did you do it again, especially knowing that you were going to be blocked as a result?&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, I didn't press the undo button, I thought that's what you meant. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Please look at this exchange between us and tell me what you learned from that block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Rihanna videography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Augmented, Capital FM, Skin (song) and Chris Robinson


 * Rihanna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Skin (song)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

So annoyed
I am damn well annoyed now. I know your going to reply to this with an excuse that obviously outsmarts mine and I don't care if I'm being rude. So when I changed the Rihanna picture in the self-titled article to her with blonde hair (which it is now) my reversion was removed as it was "not a nice picture". but now I see someone else has added the exact same picture and it seems to still be there. HOW UNFAIR IS THAT?!!! You wonder why I feel victimized and I get banned because you all make me so angry and treat me unfairly. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You are blocked because you didn't follow the editing restrictions you had agreed to. How is that an "excuse"?&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There we go! That IS an excuse! That's not even what I am talking about! You never answer my questions. Why don't you address my statement. I have been blocked for other reasons, I'm not talking about being blocked I'm asking why my edit (which was before I got banned) was reverted by Calvin because it "wasn't very nice" yet now someone else does it, it stays. W-H-Y? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a better answer?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so you clearly didn't check. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 18:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And you think that it is your page Calvin. It's not. If two people have changed the current picture to the same picture which is more recent, then surely it says something. The current one is extremely unflattering and her eyes are almost shut. I want to ask you why you use such rude speech like "Please don't use this picture". Why? You treat it like it's your article. Yes we all know you spend loads of time on them. But you need to stop being so over-protective an let people make constructive edits. What is wrong with the picture? It's more recent than the current unflattering one. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They change the picture because they are concerned with it being "recent". That's not what it's all about. You have to be able to clearly see their face and it preferably be face on, not a profile shot. I'm not being over protective, I simply undo unconstructive edits. And if you think "Please don't use this picture" is, in your words "rude speech", then my god, you have no idea what rude is or can be. I've never heard someone say that something is rude when the word "please" has been used. You really need to sort yourself out, because your attitude is absolutely horrific. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Charts
Hi, I was just wondering - feel free to diagree, just a suggestion - I had an idea. Would it be good if we added a "Weeks" column in the table of charts? I thought the Peak could go on the left, then chart in the middle, then weeks on the right. I think it would be a good idea to show how much longetivity the single had on each chart as some songs do not chart very high but spend a good amount of time on the chart. Also, it is often explained in the Chart performance section and would be good to refer to. I know this will probably be disagreed with but just a suggestion. Thanks ;) PhoenixJHudson (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's been discussed several times, and the consensus is that it should not be included. WP:Record charts is the relevent guideline.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong
I am sat here punching the floor because of Calvin. Every time I make a reasonable edit, he just revertsnit. Like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birthday_Cake_(song)&diff=486239431&oldid=486238670 I do not know what is wrong with him but he feels the need to revert every single edit of mine because he feels it is his page and no one else can touch it. And i dont care if he is considered a good editor, it is childish and Ive damn well had enough of it now. Im tempted to swear but oh no I have to restrain myself otherwise I will get banned. Its so unfair because I cant even revert the stupid reversions made by him. Something needs to be done about this. Can another user look at what hes doing,its unfair?!!! There is nothing wrong with my edits, its victimization! No one ever sees it from my point of view. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This is why you still have so much to learn.
This edit was completely unnecessary. Why do try to edit things which don't need editing? You edit for editing's sake. There is nothing wrong with having both tables the same width, it is actually suggested to do it. So you didn't "correct" the table's width. Also, you don't keep on linking the same thing over and over, as you did with Billboard in the charts table, so you didn't "correct" this either. Stop changing things for the sake of changing them instead of being constructive and editing things which need to be correct, not those which don't. You still seem incapable of being able to distinguish what to edit and what not to edit. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 11:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And you need to distinguish to leave people alone and let them edit pages as well. Its not your page! Every edit I make you edit after me. You just removed the Latin Pop songs chart for no reason! You want to talk about edits for the sake of it. huh! I changed the tables width to fit the text on one line! Why cant you just let others edit as well as you, thats wht Wikipedia is about! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not when you are making unconstructive and unhelpful edits. And yes I did give a reason. You are an awful editor who believes you are alway right. You clearly didn't read We Found Love's edit summaries nor click on it's wikilink I provided. FAIL, again. I am at my wits end with you. And I didn't even revert what you did on WFL, FAIL, yet again.  Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 11:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of calling him an awful editor, you could just come here and friendly explain him some things about editing. Otherwise I don't see anything bad with his edit. Maybe he was not right, but he didn't made some vandalism. You should think twice before writing things as such. —  Tomica   (talk)   12:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally! The breakthrough I needed. Thank you Tomica. i feel victimised and like you said I did not think there was anything wrong with my edits at all and he is getting away with over protection of articles. Have you seen all of the edits he has reverted which were constructive? Also he has a tendancy to edit straight after I make an edit, its very odd. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I already expressed my opinion. Your grammar edits are good. The only thing is that you have to read some Wikipedia How-to-edit stuff and I believe that you could become a good Rihanna editor. —  Tomica   (talk)   12:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this hardly surprises me. Not all of your edits were, bad, but some of the ones that were just were not necessary. I've explained why you are wrong on several of your other sock accounts, and I am still explaining, only now I have to explain it very direct, but you still don't understand. You aren't learning at all. You're so eager to edit that you edit things which don't need changing/are correct, then things you do do are either incorrect or wrong. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe stay away from Rihanna
Can I suggest that the best way for you to move forward is to gain experience with articles that don't have anything to do with Rihanna? She isn't the only topic in Wikipedia, and you may find the best way to deal with conflict is simply to avoid it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I will to show I can take on advice but in the nicest possible way, I am not happy. I dont see why I should stop editing my favourite singer Rihanna pages. I love Rihanna, I dont really have interest editing anything else. But I will try. Again, I am a bit annoyed as I feel I am being pushed out for no reason. I hope Calvin is being warned or talked to about this. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He's being watched, but he really hasn't done anything I can block him for. This really was just a suggestion: I'm not saying that I will reinstate your block if you continue editing Rihanna articles. Many of your edits are being rejected for formatting and style reasons. If you get more experience, you will get more comfortable with what is considered standard formatting and style, and you will wind up in conflict with Calvin less often when you do edit Rihanna articles again. I do note that he has not been reverting all of your changes today. He's reverted many of them, but many of them have been left intact.&mdash;Kww(talk) 12:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. One last thing, can you explain to me what was wrong wth this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Found_Love&diff=486240899&oldid=486240648 He only have the reason Not sourced. But what is needed as a source? I am confused with this reversion. I corrected the grammar and there was no reference for the entire run statement. Also, it will not be in the top 20 for its entire run anyway. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With all the respect no one shouldn't forbid you to edit articles that you want. But when it comes to that edit, I am afraid that Calvin was right. When you add information, every info should be sourced. Plus I have also previously told you that with stuff like live performances or notes/synopsis you should not include great details or stuff that is not in the source. You added a lot info for the performance of "WFL" at the Brits, I suggest you trimming it and please follow the source. For further information see Sourcing. You will learn, I am always open to help you. —  Tomica   (talk)   13:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am confused, I didnt edit the Wfl brits sentence. In the opening paragraph, I corrected the grammar from the lyrics speaks to the lyrics speak. It is one plural used not two. I dont understand what you mean by the live performances section, I mean the opening. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooooops. Sorry. That's a big description of the performance. I thought you did. Apologize. It will be trimmed at GAN definitely. —  Tomica   (talk)   13:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So should Calvin of reverted my good edit? I dont understand why there needs to be a source for removing wrong information or bad grammar. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have provided source. Plus the information that you added will become false when the song charts lower than 20 on the Hot 100. Its non-notable information. The fact that the song stayed at number one for 10 weeks tells itself for the success :D ! 13:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

No, youre getting confused, I removed that info because it was unsourced and corrected the grammar, thats what I am saying! Calvin revered the edit I made of removing the unsourced information but gave the explanation "unsourced". thats what i dont understand. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG! What's happening with me today *-*! You were right. 100%. —  Tomica   (talk)   13:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Can you see why I have been getting so frustrated now? Thank you. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think a reversion of your edit is clearly wrong, let me know, and I will review it. By placing an editor on a reversion restriction, it becomes my responsibility to help out in such cases. If you protest every edit, though, I will quickly tire of looking, so choose your protests wisely. Most of the reversions against you haven't been clearly wrong, just differences in judgement or reverting complete edits when only sections were wrong.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So you told me to tell you about reversions. calvin just reverted the edit I made on Pon de Replay's year end charts section. I formatted the charts into the new format and corrected the title at the top. it should be 2005 not 2005-2006. Also, i removed the certifications part from the infobox as it is not included anymore, however New Zealand was not in the Certifications section below so I added it. However it did not have a certification so I gave it a citation needed template and he just reverted the whole lot I did for no reason. Annoyed as it took me ages. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pon de Replay
You've completely screwed up the references. And now the time frames of the charting is all mesed up to. Thanks a lot. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 18:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No I havent messed it up at all. I have added very valuable information that was very helpful. All you needed to say was one reference was wrongbthat I forgot about. Ive sorted it now, no need to be so aggressive! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You had, and you just tried to fix them. Several are still screwed up though, so you haven't corrected anything. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is still poor prose. You've really mucked up the order of when the song charted to. In effect, screwed up the section I worked really hard on. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 19:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ive done nothing wrong! all ive done is add actual info of the chart runs. Instead of just saying it peaked somewhere. You wrote it wrong before saying it debuted in the top ten when it didnt it debuted at number 97. So i think you'll find I am right. Stop being such a drama queen. I dont know what youre tlking about order, it is in chronological order. I put the Australasia section at the top like the We Found Love article to split it into appropriate sections if thats what you mean. I have actually worked very hard on the section, so dont go reverting it! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not mean't to add trajectories week by week! It's more than okay to wrote about the debut and peak only. I never said it debuted in the top then, I said it entered the top then on a specific date. Big difference. So I think you'll find you are wrong. It wasn't in chronological order now, I had it all in order of where it charted first. It's been reverted anyway because you wrote in excess. You can't blame me for reverting because I've been out for the past 4/5 hours, it was Kww who reverted you. So don't go moaning about how it's only me who "victimises" you. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 23:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If Its Lovin
Im really annoyed because Calvin has gone and revered the whole edit I spent ages on saying it is a GA article. Im fed up of himnsaying this! Just becausenit is GA doesnt mean it cant be made better. I chsnged CDS to CD single like the majority of other pages and generally made the text better. Maybenhe could of reverted some of it but he didnt need to do all of it! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=If_It%27s_Lovin%27_that_You_Want&diff=486282787&oldid=486256284

PhoenixJHudson (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: am I allowed to revert other peoples edits that are not made by me? PhoenixJHudson (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hes back to his old tricks again. he just reverted an edit giving the reason "no" which is very unproffesional. For his other reversion he said there is no such thing as free access to table. There is. I moved the Book template to let the table "breathe" and keep it on one line. It was too nroken up on its own. Please review this. He reverts all of my edits, again! Can someone please just tell him that the articles are not HIS! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_da_One&action=history PhoenixJHudson (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "his old tricks again". Please, I'm a good editor. I was moving the book from one section to the other. I notice how you haven't said that I gave a clear reason on the second edit I made, which says a lot for you. This whole "breathe" thing is ridiculous. You edit for editings sake. I don't revert all of your edits, a lot has been left in tact. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 12:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The articles are not yours either, Phoenix. Stop pretending that you're the victim, have you not noticed that on 5 (maybe more) accounts it hasn't worked? Stop and read the comment at the bottom of the talk page. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 19:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Whilst
Articles on Rihanna use American English, which does not include "whilst". It's "while" in American English.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, thanks for telling me! PhoenixJHudson (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Calm down, you're just frustrated. I saw your talk page, and Calvin999 was trying to reason with you, you just weren't listening. From my analysis, he was right about this edit, you completely changed the links, which screwed up the references. I suggest you look over your own edits (constructively) and identify your faults; don't blame them on other people. If you won't cooperate, then we can't help you. Leave Calvin999 alone.

I am a Ninja, and this is my master . 14:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Done

 * 1) Added
 * 2) Removed
 * 3) Added

You know your editing restrictions. They are simple, yet you cannot seem to live within them. Your indefinite block has been reinstated. In 6 months, you can feel free to appeal to WP:BASC, but please don't waste our time before that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG i didnt even realise I did that! Honestly I didnt do it one purpose. Oh please dont block me, I have been making really good progress! I didnt do it on purpose I am sitting here in disbelief, I cant believe it! I didnt even notice it was removed, I just found another reference to another piece of information. Actually, it said citation needed, thats why I put it back in. Im getting mixed messages. I thought the revert thing was applied to adding actual visible explanations of words to articles, not references. This is so unfair to me, no one told me about references which is a bit ironic considering thats one of the reasons I promised to. Please, I didnt do it on urpose and I wasnt even finished with the Run This Town page and I feel cheated. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I was constantly editing so didnt even notice it was removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Run_This_Town&diff=486499237&oldid=486496501

I wasnt aware it was an unreliable source. I thougt I had already added the reference but when I didnt see it, I thougt it must of been somewhere else on the page so just added it there, Im sorry, I wasnt looking at the Editing history page while I was editing, it was an accident, please believe me. PhoenixJHudson (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel really annoyed and used as well. I know I made the mistake but it was an accident and looking at the Run this Town page, I revamped and corrected nearly that whole page, look how much I corrected it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Run_This_Town&oldid=486452413

VS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_This_Town

PhoenixJHudson (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * First addition, you added the reference; First removal, I removed it with a clear edit summary as to why.
 * Second addition, you added it for the second time; Second removal, I removed it for the second time, again, with a clear edit summary.
 * Third addition, you added it for a third time.

There is absolutely no way you could not have figured out someone removed your addition with clear edit summaries. "I wasnt aware it was an unreliable source" that means you haven't read what counts as a WP:RS, the site uses "user submissions" to compare songs - violation of every RS policy there is. "I have been making really good progress!" Subjective inaccurate statement. As Kww said, try again in six months - you're lucky he's giving you that after all these chances. - (CK)Lakeshade  -  talk2me  - 21:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)