User talk:TheCraziestFun

January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Goodbye Lullaby. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. ''This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodbye_Lullaby&diff=next&oldid=472562389 was very promotional. Please do not remove facts you do not agree with.'' Arg342 (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why were the ratings considered promotional? I felt as if the person who edited before me stated that the reviews were mixed, but represented mostly negative feedback. I deleted some of that to show an equal amount of views. But sorry, that was unfair for me to edit the ratings and take away viewers' rights to see the other side of them. Won't happen again, I promise.TheCraziestFun (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi TheCraziestFun,
 * Your edit came to my attention because of some technical errors on the page, when I dug deeper, I saw that it was your one particular edit that introduced the errors. Now, that is no problem, everyone makes mistakes and you seem to be a new editor.
 * I then looked at your edit pretty closely and it really looked to me that you were deliberately putting the subject in a more positive light or making the article more promotional. For the most part, you had removed negative information and put in more positive information.
 * Adding more information that is germane is just fine, but removing valid and referenced information you disagree with is not OK.
 * here is a summary of the changes you made:


 * removed About.com (3 / 5) (60%)
 * removed The A.V. Club (c-) (70%)
 * removed Entertainment Weekly (B-) (77%)
 * removed The Globe and Mail (1.5 / 4) (38%)
 * removed PopMatters (5 / 10) (50%)
 * removed Slant Magazine (2.5 / 5) (50%)
 * removed Spin magazine (5 / 10) (50%)
 * Average removed= 56.4%


 * kept Allmusic (3 / 5) (60%)
 * kept Digital Spy (4 / 5) (80%)
 * kept Rolling Stone (3 / 5) (60%)
 * Average Kept= 66%


 * Added Billboard (3.45 / 5) (69%)
 * Added New York Times (3.5 / 5) (70%)
 * Added Boston Globe (3.5 / 5) (70%)
 * Added Amazon (4 / 5) (80%)
 * Added Suite101 (5 / 5) (100%)
 * Average Added= 77.8%


 * in addition, you changed some wording from "mixed" to "mixed to positive", again adding a positive slant. You also deleted the paragraph that contained the harsh criticism of the album by Langhoff of PopMatters.


 * I am sorry, but in retrospect it did look like a promotional edit. If that was not your intent, I am sorry I took it that way.


 * Please do continue to edit Wikipedia, but keep it nuetral. There is generally room for ALL points of view, as long as you can back it up with a reference!
 * --Arg342 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to I'm with You (song). Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Avril Lavigne showing off a new hairstyle of hers.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Avril Lavigne showing off a new hairstyle of hers.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)