User talk:Unrealkitten

Welcome!

Hello, Unrealkitten, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to W.I.C.K.E.D., did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: W.I.C.K.E.D. was changed by Unrealkitten (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-02-17T22:59:43+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make test edits to articles, as you did with this edit to W.I.C.K.E.D., even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits constitute vandalism, and will be reverted. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 𝕭𝖗𝔦𝔞𝔫𝕶𝔫𝔢𝔷 ^talk 23:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to R.O.O.T.S., did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: R.O.O.T.S. was changed by Unrealkitten (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-02-25T04:17:08+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to R.O.O.T.S., you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I apologize for marking your edit as vandalism, I did so because at the time I thought it could have possibly been vandalism. I realize now it was not vandalism, but only a lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia's policies. It has been brought to my attention that my actions were responsible for your being blocked, and I wish to let you know that that was not my intention. I hope you understand that this was not done to be offensive, and I hope that this does not sway you from futher useful work on the project... Happy editing... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Adolphus79. Techman224^Talk 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU PEOPLE DOING!!!!!!!!!!??????????? Touch Me is a real song by flo Ride that will appear on his R.O.O.T.S ALBUM Here is the referrence, http://elbo.ws/post/1422944/new-flo-rida-touch-me-and-right-round/ Honestly im trying to update the source page, and you ass holes are calling vandalism on me. GO AHEAD AND BLOCK ME. then i will take this to the Administrator!

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Unrealkitten (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

LOOK AT MY HISTORY FOR R.O.O.T.S! I was adding a confirmed song with a referrence source, and i got blocked for Vandalism. I want to speak with the Administator NOW!

Decline reason:

As Dekimasu says, this was an unfortunate escalation. Here's what is really happening here. You added some information to Wikipedia, in good faith. It was reverted without comment, but the reason was that the entry was initially put up without a source. You then put up a source (youtube) and labeled it "FUCKIN PROOF", which was then reverted by a bot. You then added the song several more times with the elbo.ws source you mention above. Neither Youtube nor the blog you link to are usable souces on Wikipedia. Three times, editors have misconstrued your actions as vandalism, including the bot (though the "FUCKIN PROOF" label was inappropriate, the edit was not wholly vandalism). At no time have any of these editors explained their objections to your edit. So I have a lot of fingers to point at others here.

But I'm not unblocking you completely, I'm reducing your block to 24 hours: you may have had good reasons for your edits but adding them over and over when others object is bad for Wikipedia; no one wins in an edit war, but the article loses. Please read over Wikipedia:Three-revert rule to understand the justification for the block. ~~You were actually warned, if you read Adolphus' message in response to yours on his talk page...~~ (Scratch that, that reply was after you were blocked)... but even without a warning this was far more than 3 reverts, and did deserve a block. Mango juice^talk 14:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment I believe this user may have been making good faith edits, without understanding policies such as WP:RS and WP:3RR... Unrealkitten, please see my reply to your message on my talk page and reply here if you understand... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this escalation was unfortunate. The three-revert rule was violated, but I don't believe it should have resulted in an indefinite block, or that the edit to Adolphus's talk page was vandalism (angry in tone, but not vandalism). I would be happy to reduce this block after Unrealkitten shows an understanding of the three-revert rule. Dekimasuよ! 05:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The actions of February 18th were clearly vandalism, but not those of today. Dekimasuよ! 06:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Dekimasu. Whenever i go to google and type something in, i look and read it. I make sure that its not forums and i understand the youtube situation. But the blog things im still confused about. I have placed up info from the own artists words and the add was reverted. Some administrators think im vandalism whenever im trying to add an update which i believed was a reliable source. I think most of the administrators here need to learn to revert, THEN MESSAGE the person who did the update on what was wrong with their update rather than blocking the person. I did not that Administrators were reverting my update. I thought it just wasn't saving so thats why i continued to repost it over and over. . .

all im saying is that there should be a new rule. If something is reverted, tell the updater what was wrong with his process rather than blocking him. Here is the definition i got from the dictionary, Van*dal*ism = n. Willful or malicious destruction of public or private property

What i did was not destorying anything. I was adding something that didn't follow one of the rules. Destroying something would be like erasing everything on the web page and writing something completely inappropriate.

- IF that Blogs are not realiable source than what about. . .
24hourhiphop.com/search.php?query=flo%20rida%20touch%20me&t=videos&submit=Search
www.djbooth.net/index/interviews/entry/flo-rida-interview-0224091/
www.xxlmag.com/online/?p=32537
www.on9g.com/en/redirect.php?tid=17423&goto=lastpost
www.datpiff.com/Flo_Rida_-_Touch_Me_exclusive.v921.html

Is there a way of rather than reverting, Google it yourself to see if it's true than FIX the reference rather than blocking. the "FUCKIN PROOF" yes, that was a mistake, but that should only be one warning. Not 3 and a block. What i said onto an administrators talk page was NOT vandalism but a true comment.

I think you have the idea. You should have been contacted before being blocked, but also note that the three-revert rule is a general guide, not a right to three reversions. If you find yourself being reverted once, it's a sign it would probably be a good idea to go to the talk page of the article to discuss the point you want to add or subtract. The list of other links you have there would be a good thing to talk to the other editor about. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can write anything on them, true or not (much like Wikipedia). From a quick look, your links that consist just of videos are probably not going to be considered reliable... but you have also put enough information together to convince me, personally, that the track will be on the album. Dekimasuよ! 16:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unrealkitten -- I was troubled by this situation so I went looking for a good source on this matter myself and I couldn't find one. There are a couple of sites that host the "Touch Me" song/video but don't have anything else to say about it. These can't be used because they don't say the crucial thing -- that Touch Me will be on the R.O.O.T.S. album. One of the above was a forum of some kind; the tip about Touch Me being on the album was posted by an individual user. Forums posts and blogs are not reliable for the same reason: they are posted by individuals that aren't experts, with no editorial oversight or fact-checking. One of the above seemed to be a list of links about Flo Rida that don't specifically refer to Touch Me. You also posted an interview: that's a good source, but doesn't say anything about Touch Me that I could see. It looks to me as if there are some songs that are truly confirmed and others, like Touch Me, that are solid rumors... but rumors aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. When reporting about things in the future, Wikipedia has to be careful to stick to only reliably sourced statements, because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This may be one of those cases where we won't be able to include the information at this time. But seriously, thank you for your efforts in researching this. New contributors are always welcome at Wikipedia. Mango juice^talk 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem Relapse Album cover.

Is it possible for someone to put this album cover up on Eminem's relapse page. http://tricktrick.clan.su/1111/Eminem_Relapse_CoverArt.png

OH WOW!

I got warnings and Suspensions for putting up "Touch Me" on flo rida's confirmed tracks. No one believed me and now it is finally up there. Fuck you wikishitia. I told you it was a track and you ignored me and banned me. No wonder why no one goes to this shitty site.

Fuckin bitches!

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Blaze Ya Dead Homie, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Blaze Ya Dead Homie was changed by Unrealkitten (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-03-22T20:58:49+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Sickology 101. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Tangent747 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]