THudson24

Unblocked

I've unblocked you subject to the following restrictions

1. Only the Iluvrihanna24 account will be unblocked.
2. No alternate accounts, and no anonymous editing.
3. You cannot restore any material that you have added and another editor has removed. This includes material added in the past by any sockpuppet accounts.
4. All additions of material must include inline citations to reliable sources.
5. Violations will result in a one-week block on the first occurrence, a one-month block on the second, and returned to an indefinite block on the third.

As we discussed earlier, your honesty is essential. If I decide that you are attempting to fool people into believing something is true that is not, I will go to the indefinite block immediately. You not only need to be honest with us, you need to make it obvious that you are being honest with us.—Kww(talk)

Thanks Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You've added unsourced material...

I've added 5 or so citation tags to your "thorough copyedit". I notice it is apart of your unblock to include full and reliable sources, which you have not done on "Diamonds (Rihanna song)". If I were you, I'd do this very quickly. AARON• ^TALK 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of those tags were on material that was previously there, so I'm not going to go after those. "In its fourth week, "Diamonds" climbed to number ten, becoming Rihanna's 19th top ten, breaking a tie with Lil Wayne for the second-best sum in the list's 22-year history; only Mariah Carey (23) has more", however, is purely your writing. What source that is in that version of the article supports the comparison with Lil Wayne and Mariah Carey?—Kww(talk) 19:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh I knew i was going to slip up somewhere! Thing is, i've got so many tabs up and I did see the information in an article, i just forgot to add that one in now. Please can I not just add it in quickly now? Please. that was the ONE page I forgot. Please. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kww Yes, but if a user is doing a "thorough copyedit" (quoted from Iluvrihanna24's edit summary), that implies/means make sure everything is sourced when you are finished, whether it is your words or not. It's common sense. I looked at the differences between revisions and the entire section was moved about, so sources should have been added for everything. As a result, the section hasn't been "thoroughly copyedited" has it. AARON• ^TALK 21:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

One week block. Your editing restrictions are extremely simple. I didn't demand that you fix all existing defects in every article you touch, so I can't go with Calvin999's logic, but you aren't permitted to add unsourced material.—Kww(talk) 21:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

I screwed up your block expiration date. You are unblocked now.—Kww(talk) 18:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian Roulette (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Brown (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) 12:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SOSrihannavideo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:SOSrihannavideo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Consistency

Why didn't you make the two tables below the same width?. Also, I've reverted several of your edits, you are editing for editing sakes, and I'm not the only one who thinks this. Not every article needs to have an edit made to it at all times of the day. What is this "new chart format" you seem so adamant about using? It's not new and not needed, you are massively OVERLINKING by doing so. You need to calm down and start edit constructively and stop all this nonsense and pointless editing. AARON• ^TALK 14:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia, we appreciation your work. But we DO NOT accept any unreliable information. The critical reception of Rihanna met UP TO NOW with mixed reviews (10/16), if you believe that the album met with Positive reception, you need to support at least with (12/18) positive reviews from music critics to support your claim. Otherwise its vandalism. Its' okay to remove this massage. Fidelove☺whispers 12:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I never first edited the page (and it is Unapologetic by the way not the Rihanna article) to say it had positive reception. If I remember rightly, you edited [1] the opening to say that the reeptionw as mixed instead of positive. It had already been written as positive before you had to edit it. If you even bothered to read the Critical Reception section it says: "Unapologetic received an average score of 65, which indicates "generally favorable reviews", based on 16 reviews". If anything it should say generally positive. If it was mixed it would say it received mixed reception on Metacritic. Please don't come onto my page making out I have done all of this wrong, when in fact you haven't edited properly. Anyway, the album does not even have 18 reviews yet. So you are saying if an album doesn't have 18 reviews, it can't be positive? Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Again NO article Should be Written from a fans point of view

Easy there! why so defensive! don't take such think any personal :) . Metacritic is only one criterion for rating Unapologetic its not the only primary source to indicate that it has favorable reception! It has a mixed reception ! Praising the songs production, while criticizing her vocals! Yeah it is a VANDAL considered from the USER Cobbie98 stating that it topped the UK chart without providing any cited link ! Again I Insist, this page should not be written from a "FANS PERSPECTIVE" and I'll publicize this RIGHT NOW!

Fidelove☺</fontwhispers 1:58 AM, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to shout! Stop writing in capitals. Metacritic is the universal collection of all reviews that all album articles use to get an overall mark. I'm not saying the reception was all good and perfect at all, but you should not say it is mixed either as that is not what it indicates on Metacritic. I have sorted it now anyway and reached a happy compromise; the mark indicates generally favorable reviews, but some comments criticized some aspects. Not sure how old you are but the way you discuss with other users is very immature. This is an encyclopedic talk page, not a social network site. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You have violated a term you agreed to.

Point 3 says "You cannot restore any material that you have added and another editor has removed. This includes material added in the past by any sockpuppet accounts." You undid Fidelove's edit, then he/she reverted you, then you reverted him again and added "However" to the following to sentence to make look as though it was not a direct revert, then in fact, you did "restore any material that you have added and another editor has removed". AARON• ^TALK 16:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You've walked right up to the line with this one, Iluvrihanna24, and I seriously considered blocking. I haven't, because I can hear the argument that you didn't "add", you "changed". I will point out that the restrictions against edit-warring apply to all editors, and if you continue to participate in this one, I will block you for that. You have to learn to tolerate differences of opinion, and not deal so forcibly with an issue as breathtakingly trivial as this.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It was still adding the word "positive" back again. And he added "However," on purpose so it would look more like a change than an add. I'm a good judge of character and I can see what happened, it's so obvious. AARON• ^TALK 15:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no doubt that he reverted, Calvin, and, as I've made clear, I consider his actions to be edit warring. His restriction is designed and intended to curtail his habit of adding fannish material and opposing all efforts to remove it, and this doesn't qualify under the literal reading of his restriction so as to trigger an automatic one-month block. Very, very close, but just doesn't quite make it.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be for a month then. Lol. AARON• ^TALK 16:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest though, when are these editing restrictions over? I mean, personally, I think I have done extremely better than I have shown in the past. 9 days with no violations is really good for me. But as soon as I do the slightest thing wrong I am just immediately picked up on it. I did not revert that edit, so I don't think I should be blocked from editing. Also, another point made before was that I only add lots of information and I have actually been reverting many edits made by people and cutting down articles. I'm just disappointed that no one is noticing how hard I am trying. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

At least 6 months from now. You are doing better. I think this is your longest unblocked interval in a long time.—Kww(talk) 17:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been trying so so hard, it is difficult and although I now and then make mistakes I think I have been doing well considering. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You've been let off lightly in my opinion. It was a clear revert and was purposely edited to make it look like it wasn't. AARON• ^TALK 10:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Bajan Style (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Fergie

The Work Experience (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lifestyle

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Right Now (Rihanna song) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Who says that is a correct format?. D comes before S, so Dance comes before Singles. I've told you as a comment above about these nonsensical, pointless, editing for editing sakes edits. You really should start making use of article's talk pages. Why don't you post a comment and wait for a response instead of being a bull in a china shop and making these edits? IMO, you're still not learning from your mistakes. AARON• ^TALK 10:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Phresh Out the Runway because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Per comments above. You also removed the link to UK R&B. Stop editing purely for the sake of it, you are not being constructive, instead, you are making the articles unstable. AARON• ^TALK 10:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well excuse me! On all single articles, it is not ever written as the OCC but Official Charts Company. That's all I changed stop freaking out over nothing! I'm not going to ask for permission to change it on the talk page as this is the format used on all articles. I'm actually fixing the format so stop moaning at me. Singles goes above as it is the main chart, just like with the Billboard Hot 100. And this isn't a chat room "IMO" Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've seen lots of articles with OOC, which is it's official abbreviation. It's not broken, so don't fix it. Moral of this talk page which you constantly ignore. AARON• ^TALK 21:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay then please tell me how The Official Charts Company abbreviates to OOC please? This is absolutely pathetic! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Official Charts Company: "The Official Charts Company (OCC),". There. See. Proves how much you don't do your homework before you submit it. And btw, if this is not a "chat room", then why start a conversation with me? You are not learning at all, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. You may not be vandalising to the extreme point you used to, but your edits are still a long way off from being remotely constructive. AARON• ^TALK 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus christ are you actually blind?!!! You're editing it saying OOC not OCC!!!! Don't patronise me by saying the Official Charts Company abbreviates to OCC - I KNOW THAT FULL WELL! That's the point I have been making to you for ages! If you even bothered to look at all the other many single articles, you'd see that it has the template as the Official Charts Company, no abbreviated versions. Stop trying to make me look bad and leave me alone. My edits are more constructive than yours seeing as you don't even do any research of other articles clearly! Just face it: you were wrong on this occasion! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Most other countries are abbreviated. There's no rule which says no to only the UK. You're so deluded if you think I don't research other articles. Oliver Cromwell's head was posthumously decapitated and left on a pike for approx 25 years. Bet you didn't know that. I do, because I look through different articles everyday. If your edits were more constructive, then you wouldn't be a sock puppet who is under a billion editing restrictions. Think. AARON• ^TALK 22:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You never even addressed that you have edited these articles saying OOC!!! What have you got to say about that then?? Please xplain to me what OOC abbreviates to?!!! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo I made a typo, doesn't compare to the innumerable disruptive edits you've made, but you don't listen. By the way, I thought you said you weren't editing anymore and was leaving below... AARON• ^TALK 19:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now you are being just immature. I haven't made disruptive edits at all. Why are you trying to shift the blame onto me? You made the mistake and you just cannot admit it. Now there are still pages with typos in them. Just change them to Official Charts Company like EVERY OTHER ARTICLE! Disruptive is vandalising pages that I keep fixing all of the time. People like you are disruptive. Calling the Official Charts Company OOC when on every other page it is written in its usual form. Yes boo hoo you did make a typo, which is highly negative to an article in an encyclopaedia!!! My edits are more constructive than yours, at least I am writing correctly. Just leave me alone and let me edit on my own and stop making out you are so perfect when you editing poorly. Iluvrihanna24 (talk)

I don't want to stop editing, I want you to stop being such an idiot editing. You're moaning at me for making unconstructive edits? I just corrected ANOTHER typo on the Half of Me page where you spelt StarGate StarGat. On all of these pages you have created, there are so amateur it is unbelievable. You're pathetic. How dare you come on my page trying to make me look bad when you are far worse. What exactly is your problem with me? All you have done since I have been a member is belittle me. You STILL haven't fixed the typo you made!

What wasn't me who spelt StarGat, it was Tomica. Proof you don't bother to check things. Also reporting you. You're attacking me. AARON• ^TALK 21:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with StarGate? That's their real name, it's not Stargate. Just on Wiki stylization is not used on the title of the article. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Joke

I'm not editing here anymore! If a user can't even see how to abbreviate something properley and revert all of my constructive edits then what's the point? It's just the Calvin999 show basically. Not even providing a reason for reverting apart from "No" even though I bothered to give an explanation. Seems extremely one sided if you ask me. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've given you a reason countless, but you always ignore. I'm not wasting my time by repeating the same thing to you like a little child who refuses to listen. AARON• ^TALK 22:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please add the material (no source needed in LEAD as sourced elsewhere in article) Re: Unapologetic being Rihanna's first number 1 album in US.

You should have the honor of adding this. Certainly important enough for the album's LEAD. Thank You & Happy Editing—Iknow23 (talk) 11:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh that's so kind of you! Why did you want me to do it? :) Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Because you had already added it to the Commercial performance section. :)—Iknow23 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I didn't technically add it but I did add the further information about it overtaking "Loud". Thanks for giving me the honor ;) Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well that cool ... You're welcome :)—Iknow23 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Phresh Out the Runway"

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phresh Out the Runway, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've had enough of this! It is actually you and Aaron who are ruining the pages. Why did you write all the rubbish about Diamonds, Talk That Talk what's the release date and teasing of the album got to do with Phresh Out The Runway at all?!! Nothing. And I did give explanations in all of my summaries. I'm not sure if you are English or not but you are not writing grammatically correct at all. I have had to go through so many articles editing them. You didn't need to undo my whole 12 edits though did you?!! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a track list when it is not even a single? Why did you revert my edit on correcting the chart format. You are as bad as Aaron if you think Official Charts Company is abbreviated (if at all needed anyway) to OOC. It's ludacrus that you are reverting my constructive edits. I cleaned up that whole mess of a page. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Here doesn't exist good or bad people, clarify that before you accuse someone. First of all, you can add the format, I don't care, because it's the same and it's for the sake of it (your doing it and you know it). Second, you didn't clean a mess, rather you made a "stubby", the article was bad for reading and crucial information was also removed. And not to talk about "Half fo Me" where the prose you added is like an article from Biilboard magazine. Suggest you to calm down with your edits and make proper ones. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for the comments I made, I was just getting very frustrated with these users who have been very unfair towards me. I am glad there is someone like you among these users that sees my point of view. Thank you. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Drunk on Love (Rihanna song) that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I've lost count how many times I've told you not to unlink these. AARON• ^TALK 19:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roc Me Out. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Again, don't unlink. Stop it now. AARON• ^TALK 19:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at We All Want Love, you may be blocked from editing. For unlinking which I have now told you twice in the last 5 minutes not to do. AARON• ^TALK 19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell do you think you are threatening me with an block like you think you own me when Till has told me that you are wrong and that you are making hurtful comments towards me. He agrees with me and had to re-format all of the reversions you made of mine. Judging on your previous edits, I am in the right, not you. When will you get it that I make constructive edits?! This is the generic format used on ALL single articles. It is not written like this anymore: UK Singles Chart, why can't you just let someone else edit a page apart from you?! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a preloaded template, you should now that by now with how many times you've been warned. I didn't write that. NO, it's not a "generic form". It's an idea you have in your head. And before you start going all "Calvin hates me and reverts everything I do" on me, I actually just wrote something positive about you on Tomica's talk page. You should take advice and listen to people. As Rihanna says, "Watch n' Learn". Some of your edits are constructive, certainly not all. Not by a long mile. AARON• ^TALK 19:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me translate you iluvrihanna24, he does that and he thinks your edits are constructive because I'm involved here too. Calvin is also his friend. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

This isn't vandalism. Don't know why your wrote it as such. AARON• ^TALK 13:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. There was bad punctuation and it was written in a rumour-gossip style. I woudlb't expect you to understand seeing as you write exactly the same with typos and such. Why are you constantly checking up on me? I'm not looking at what your doing. Just leave me alone, as I have told u to do many times and you don't seem to be understanding. You must be extremely bored to have to do that. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical errors is not vandalism. Many of the edits you do, however, have been vandalism. "I woudlb't expect you to understand seeing as you write exactly the same with typos and such." Like the typo you made on "woudlb't"? No, let me tell you something. You don't ever listen to me or others, and for as long as you continue to not listen, people will continue to patrol your edits in their watchlist's, because you do not learn from your repetitive "mistakes". AARON• ^TALK 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Only Girl (In the World), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This slipped my attention somehow. I've tired of telling you not to WP:OVERLINK. You never, ever listen. AARON• ^TALK 15:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

UNBELIEVABLE!!! oh my god you seriously need to get the hell off Wikipedia if you are that sad trying to make me look like I am vandalizing a page that was from November 17, 2012. I feel extremely sorry for you that you feel so threatened by me that you have to choose an old edit to get me blocked. Sad person. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I've told you about this so many times. You keep on making the same changes. Now that constitutes as vandalism, when you keep making the same changes after being warned for each time you do it. I don't feel threatened by you, you feel threatened by myself and others. You make mass, un-constructive, unnecessary edits to make it look like you know what you are doing, when most of the time, you don't. Stop being so dramatic about things. You have 0 achievements on Wikipedia, I've promoted 49 articles to GA status on here. Why would I be threatened by you?? Point proven about how you feel threatened by me and others. Try assessing what you think before you write it. AARON• ^TALK 15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not making sense AT ALL. Where in that reply did you address that you came onto MY TALK PAGE accusing me of vandalism of an edit that is TWO WEEKS old?!! You never respond to my correct accusations like your typos that you did not address until multiple replies after. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

God, learn to read. I said I've told you about overlinking, such as in this case, so many times. Stop getting things twisted on purpose to try and make it look like I messed up, because it's not working. I did address it, at least I take note of what others say. Stop throwing your toys out of the pram. AARON• ^TALK 15:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So you just decided to hit me with a warning about an edit two weeks ago, NOW?! Why?!! Are you really that bored so you just start giving warnings to constructive users? YOU HAVE MESSED UP! Do you even know what you are writing on other people's talk pages? YOU need to learn to read sending me two week old warnings jesus christ. If you didn't bother me and just kept in your own little space none of these problems would exist. You edit what you want, I edit what I want, peace and quiet. You're so difficult. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Because you're not learning from your mistakes which you keep on making despite being told and then warned about. I haven't messed up, so don't WP:SHOUT at me. If I didn't "bother you", I have no doubt that the state of Rihanna articles would be in a horrific condition, and I'm not the only one who know that. You poorly edit the articles that me, Tomica and other members of the project maintain, that's the problem. If didn't make these edits, there would be peace and quiet, like how it was when you was blocked. There was no hassle, drama or aggravation. And don't be rude to me either: "You're so difficult." AARON• ^TALK 16:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You are difficult! I would like it so much if we could be friends but you make it so hard. "You poorly edit the articles that me, Tomica and other members of the project maintain, that's the problem." This shows that you are too overprotective of pages. It is not up to you at all to maintain a page. Wikipedia is for everyone to edit. You are treating me like I am just an IP address adding whatever I like without references. I edit properly and constructively which other users have backed me up on. Till has also told you that you are overprotective with pages and need to stop thinking that you own articles because you don't. You need to let it go and let others edit. I don't understand where you think that i haven't learnt my mistakes from, when you are choosing an edit that was two weeks old. That was when you first moaned at me for changing the format of the charts and I haven't edited any since, not that it is your job to tell me this. I don't understand your problem with me updating the format of the chart. It is used like this for the "We Found Love" page which is a good and detailed article so that is where I branch out from. The old format of the chart was written for example as Australian Singles Chart but now is written as Australia (ARIA). But you just keep returning to the old version as if you "OWN" the pages. You are also being rude to me by saying that basically I just ruin articles when that is not the case at all. I think your problem is that you cannot understand Wikipedia is for E.V.E.R.Y.O.N.E. to edit and not just yourself or a set group of people. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not overprotective, I make sure they are well maintained and that they aren't vandalised. I haven't even read the rest of your comment. You're not listening to me, you never have, and you never will. For as long as you continue to not listen to me or other editor's, it will be your downfall. I'm so tired of repeating myself over and over and over to you. I'm not being rude by telling you that you're not constructive on article, I'm telling the truth. Wikipedia is here for all to edit who are competent in what they are doing. Those who are incompetent don't last long because of their own fault. You think each and every edit you make is 100% perfect, that's far from the case. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself to you about all that you do wrong. You obviously don't care, or else you'd stop making the same edits over and over despite being asked not to. AARON• ^TALK 16:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

1. But I haven't kept making the same edits over and over; this proven by you taking a two week old edit.

2. You say you are not being rude to me and just telling you the truth, same with me: you are difficult. 3. When have I ever said my edits are 100% perfect? Never. 4. Wikipedia is not here for competent people, it is here for just people. Yes it is helpful if there are competent but it is not an essential rule. Stop twisting it. 5. You keep saying things like "You are not listening to me" and "Despite being asked not to by me" That's because I really don't care what you have to say to me. You don't own me nor do you articles. If you left me alone for a bit, didn't revert my constructive (as stated by others) edits and stop being hypocritical with me when you make typos and grammar mistakes on articles, then maybe I would see your point but I won't until then. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

And it's because you don't care and don't listen that you will always be known for the sock puppet that you are. And yes, you have been making the same mistakes. End of. AARON• ^TALK 16:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Numb (Rihanna song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I've lost count how many times I've told you not to do this. Billboard publishes the Canada Hot 100, not the Canada Hot 100 itself. It's the equivalent to the US Hot 100, published by Billboard. Understand? AARON• ^TALK 01:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? You may want to go and change EVERY SINGLE OTHER ARTICLE that uses the chart to Billboard then because the Canadian Hot 100 is the correct format. Jesus christ! Why do you feel the need to just make all the providers in brackets different to all of the other single articles like OCC when you know full well what it should be?! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit to Unapologetic

I reverted your change to Unapologetic. Per WP:ALBUMS/STYLE, charts and certifications have separate sections. Also, "weekly charts" seems like a frivolous distinction as there's no other kind of chart table in that section, at least right now. Dan56 (talk) 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop

Vandalising Rihanna articles. You have violated your restrictions so many times. Thought you was leaving anyway... AARON• ^TALK 16:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah well I'm not so get used to it. You don't even know the meaning of the word vandalise. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I do. You are the definition of it. Always removing and changing things, waiting a week or so because you know you will be blocked, then remove and change things again. That's a violation of your restriction. Un-doing and reverting others who have revert you means always, not wait a week and do it again. AARON• ^TALK 18:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You just completely ruined that section!!! Spelt Lana Del REY's name wrong for no reason whatsoever and just reworded my "excessive" edit. You also just kept adding the same reference throughout...why?!! There only needs to be one reference for each review. You're so blind that you can't even see what you're doing is wrong. I don't understand your obsession with the "Stay" article. You're just determined to keep it under your leash and make it all yours! You're so annoying. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

WE DON'T COPY ENTIRE REVIEWS AND PASTE THEM INTO THE ARTICLE. You don't understand and you never will. You will not listen. You will not take notice. You do not care. Keep acting like this, you are digging your hole deeper, deeper and deeper. It's not an obsession, it's your vandalism. AARON• ^TALK 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Stay (Rihanna song), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Violating restriction and being deceptive. You didn't put Lana back in on purpose to make it look like you haven't reverted. AARON• ^TALK 18:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

When will you realise? I don't care about your warnings when YOU are vandalizing Wikipedia simultaneously. Biggest hypocrite I have ever witnessed!! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol, keep on believing your delusional thoughts. AARON• ^TALK 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So immature. Yes they are really delusional, really. You have the audacity to change an artist's name when it isn't a broken link, why?! Why change an artist's name for NO reason?! You seriously are mental dude. And you say you are not overprotective or obsessed with the article when you have to make edits as stupid as that?! I can see you are not all there anyway because you never even address the wrong edits I point out that you make, just overlook every single one of them. Just leave the article alone and let others edit, yeah? Seeing as that is what Wikipedia is all about. Surely you learnt that when you signed up, no?

Yeah, you are immature. Yes, your notions about other very delusional. It was a typo, but you don't see it like that. Lol, yeah I'm definitely not all there, which is why I've been accepted to do a Masters at University, because you know, only stupid people go to University. Think before you write. Anyone can edit the article, but only constructive edits can stay. As with any article on Wikipedia. How old are you, 11? Goodbye. AARON• ^TALK 19:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012 (2)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Unapologetic has an edit summary here that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate; the reason why was mentioned before at your talk page here. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warrning

You are obviously edit warring over chart title entries (and Calvin, I know you are reading this: you are also obviously edit-warring over chart titles). There's nothing in your edit restrictions that prevents me from blocking you for other reasons.

If I see more edit warring over chart titles, you will be blocked until you agree to stop doing so.—Kww(talk) 16:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My restriction doesn't enable to be caught up edit warring actually over titles, actually. A few times over a few weeks on a few articles isn't really close proximity warring. Not being funny, but if you read this talk page, you will see how I have asked him not to make edits like this. And in his own words, he doesn't care. I'm definitely not in the wrong here. AARON• ^TALK 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You simply not accepting the fact that you are in the wrong Aaron is the worst thing of all.

Calvin999 believes that the Official Charts Company is written as OCC and that Canadian Hot 100 is provided by Billboard. Plus, he also reverted my perfectly constructive edit changing "Swiss Music Charts" to "Schweizer Hitparade". I use the correct generic format and for some reason he thinks that Stay is a special article that he owns. He even changed Lana Del Rey's name to Lana Del RAY for no reason whatsoever. It's pathetic. He edits for the sake of it to "OWN" articles. I mean, you edited Stay 13 times in a row the other day. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Keeping this all in one place, neither of you is immune to being blocked over any kind of edit war. The presence of special restrictions doesn't give you a free pass in other areas. If anything, it makes all of your edits get watched more closely. Put a stop to this. Both of you. When I look at the changes, I'd probably split the difference, going for "Billboard" in the Canadian case and "Schweizer Hitparade" in the other. Neither of you is clearly right or clearly wrong, which is what discussion pages are for. Not edit summaries. Not edit wars. Discussion pages.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OCC is the official abbreviation, and yes Billboard does published the Canadian Hot 100. Why else do you think the Canadian Hot 100 is on billboard.com?? I thought Rey was Ray, perfectly reasonable. I even told you it was a typo, but yet you harp on about it. Get over yourself. I edited Stay 13 times in a row? Then what's you reason for this then? And Kww, look at how much I've posted on this talk page asking him not to repeat his mistakes. AARON• ^TALK 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop trying to be such a suck up. Give me another single article page that abbreviates to the OCC? And even that was after multiple times of me telling you that you had written it as OOC. I know what the abbreviation of Official Charts Company is thanks, just dont call it that in articles. And I know the Canadian Hot 100 is by billboard but the provider is the Canadian Hot 100. Again, show me a article where the Canadian Hot 100 is provided by Billboard? Its not perfectly reasonable to go out of your way to change her last name when the link was perfectly fine, it wasn't broken. You seem to think typos are fine on Wikipedia and just little mistakes, they're not. Punctuation is essential on Wikipedia as it is an encyclopedia after all. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I recognize how often you post on his page, Calvin999, and an enormous part of this problem is that both of you start with the idea that the other is wrong, and proceed to fight over it. That's why I see both of you reverting typographical and grammar errors back into articles: neither of you gives the other any credit whatsoever. Talk these things out on article talk pages, where other editors will weigh in, and then listen to those other editors. Let them mediate this. And also for both of you: references to the other's maturity, lack thereof, or use of terms like "suckup" are also clearly unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@iluvrihanna24 Can list several actually. Big deal, I made a typo. Is nothing compared to how unconstructive you have been a lot of the time. So you're the boss now with how companies can and cannot be written now? I don't think so. Nothing wrong with abbreviations. Broken? What are you on about? Writing that the Canadian Hot 100 publishes the Canadian Hot 100 is like writing that the US Hot 100 publishes the US Hot 100. Canadian Hot 100 is a singles chart, not a publishing company. Typo's are little mistakes and can be easily corrected. You massively need to sort out your priorities, Christ. @Kww I'm not the only one who writes here saying he is wrong, so it's obviously not just me. I have given him credit before, I told him, and he ignored. Even when I pointed it out to him, he ignored it. Not my fault. He has nothing complimentary to say about me, in fact he only says the opposite and thinks I'm a vandal, which I actually find quite amusing. You haven't even answered to what I said your talk page. AARON• ^TALK 16:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. You raise so many false alarms and exaggerate minor disputes so heavily that I don't pay much attention any more. You argue about so many minor things that I have a very hard time deciding that I need to pay attention. Your warnings on his talk page drown out real discussion from editors that I would take more seriously. It's quite possible that some of your problems are quite genuine, but, in this go around, when I saw you edit-warring that "OOC" thing into articles even after Iluvrihanna24 has specifically pointed it out, I decided that you weren't really paying attention to what he was saying. I'll agree that Iluvrihanna24 also doesn't pay enough attention to what you are saying, which is why I'm asking both of you to take your discussions to article talk pages. I don't give Iluvrihanna24 any special treatment: if I see him editing against consensus, I'll come down on him like a ton of bricks. What I need to see is people coming to a consensus for him to go against in the first place.—Kww(talk) 16:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A typo of mine vs all what he does. He has been editing against consensus and your restriction, and I've pointed it out many a time. AARON• ^TALK 21:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Show me a specific diff of a case where has added a fact (not made an editorial or stylistic change), had it reverted, and then readded it. Show me that, and he's blocked for a week. It's really that simple.—Kww(talk) 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm fed up of this "alliance" between Calvin999 and Tomica too. He has just reverted this update which was constructive. [2] And now it is an updated version with incorrect formatted of dates. I don't see what was wrong with my edit at all. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you're doing it. Read the edit summary he left, and it's obvious. You took two things referenced to the same place and split them up into two separate references instead of using a named reference. Tomica reverted that. How can you "not see what was wrong" when Tomica pointed it out? Why would you see him doing that as a sign of some kind of alliance?—Kww(talk) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, why didn't he just name the references instead of reverted the WHOLE mainly constructive edit? I updated the chart positions. And just look on Calvin's page for the "alliance" topic! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Kww. I have, it's on your talk page. AARON• ^TALK 22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's one diff. Show me that he added the Irish chart, someone else removed it, and that he readded that. I don't see that in the history.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about the change of publishing companies and linking. He has done it several times on several articles. He does it in a way where he adds or removes something else which doesn't need to be changed to avoid it being detected as him changing it again. AARON• ^TALK 22:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a stylistic/editorial change. He isn't on a 1RR restriction. I suspect that you have reverted that change just as many times as he has, and, as I said earlier, I think both versions are half-right and half-wrong.

But it is still adding something back, which is a violation of his restriction, no? This. He copied a review and pasted it, I paraphrased it and made it less long and put some into the composition, and he reverted saying that it's incorrect to shorten refs for sentences and that it was fine. AARON• ^TALK 22:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What alliance are you talking about? That doesn't exist. All we want is to try to teach how some things work here, but obviously you don't want to liste and continue with your 'editing' when in fact is about the sake of it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You are letting yourself get baited, but your editing restrictions are extremely clear. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stay_%28Rihanna_song%29&diff=528046707&oldid=528045900 followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stay_%28Rihanna_song%29&diff=528189556&oldid=528180235 is clearly readding material that another editor had deleted.

You would find this whole process much simpler if you would edit articles in an area that you aren't so emotionally attached to.—Kww(talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna&diff=prev&oldid=528364720 followed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna&diff=next&oldid=528364720 See how he reverts but changes it slightly to make it look like he isn't actually violating? He also revert someone else after on Rihanna. AARON• ^TALK 23:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And, again, that would not have violated his restrictions. The net result of four successive edits was to remove a bit of unsourced material.—Kww(talk) 01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mikky Ekko, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Barbadian, Stay and John Hill (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) 11:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A perfect example of you editing for editing sake...

You were changing the release dates without any reason or source. "Stay" was released in the UK on Jan 7, "Pour It Up" was released in the US on Jan 8th. Fact. Why were changing these and saying that "Pour It Up" is the second, not third, single? There is no reason. You haven't change one tiny little bit. AARON• ^TALK 10:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. If you even bothered to read after that date it said IN THE UNITED STATES. You said it yourself. Pour It Up was released in the US on Jan8 while Stay was released on Jan29 IN THE UNITED STATES so Pour It Up is indeed the second US single to be released from Unapologetic so I think you'll find I am correct. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about the 29th actually, so... Like I said in the edit summary, the US does not take precedence. "Stay" was released first, therefore it is the second single to be released from the album. If you wish, phrase it differently. Something along the lines of "Pour It Up" is the second single to be released in the United States, and third overall from Unapologetic. Now, this is correct. It's a similar situation to "Wait Your Turn". AARON• ^TALK 10:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mikky Ekko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ARIA (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) 11:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Take Care (song). You have been told before why this kind of change is not constructive and should not be made. Your edit appeared to be disruptive and has been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, I'm Calvin999. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Numb (Rihanna song) because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! This edit. Don't know how many more times you're going to do this...  — AARON • ^TALK 23:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Direct violation of your restrictions

This edit is a violation of your restriction, you directly reverted me in the edit summary, and violated "He cannot restore any material that he has added and another editor has removed."  — AARON • ^TALK 01:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Didn't restore material, just changed formatting. You two both nearly got blocked over this petty squabble. You will if it continues.—Kww(talk) 03:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is restoring material. Besides, he has been told at least 20 times not to change the formatting. I don't see why I am being nearly blocked, it's not me who keeps changing things when asked not to.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Even when someone disagrees with your opinion you still aren't happy with it. I feel very sorry for you. Move on! Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rihanna Stay music video screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna Stay music video screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rihanna Mikky Ekko Stay music video.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Rihanna Mikky Ekko Stay music video.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note

I've been looking your edits every now and then, as most appear in my watchlist, and I'm pleased that you are (for whatever reason) making constructive, helpful and good contributions.  — AARON • ^TALK 20:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Aww thanks Aaron that's very nice of you to note. Thanks. I have always tried to make constructive edits anyway, I think some of them just got lost in translation but once again thanks for noticing, it actually means a lot to me. :) Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rihanna Stay Video.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rihanna Stay Video.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rihanna te amo video.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rihanna te amo video.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Runthistownvideo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Runthistownvideo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to British and Irish

Live Your Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Whatever You Like

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Next single

Heey Iluvrihanna24, i saw your recent edits, and i made one of them undone. Right Now I saw that just as the fourth single will be released on May 13, 2013, you are not sitting there next! The French article says; "Right Now" will released as the fourth single of her seventh studioalbum Unapologetic, on May 13, 2013. So I want to say that you are not sitting next to me and offer me apologize that I made ​​you undo operation, while originally not even REQUIREMENT. Regards, Sebastiaan Talk 20 apr 2013 12:17 (CEST) 12:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

But you have to have a resource to add Right Now. Sebastiaan Talk 20 apr 2013 12:17 (CEST)

I'm sorry I don't speak whatever bad grammar language this is.....Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

English obviously isn't his first language.  — AARON • ^TALK 19:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Editing Warning

This is regarding your editing on unapologetic. It seems you have a habit of inappropriate editing judging from your talk page, especially with Rihanna. Don't do it again because you don't seem to have a valid reason when you do. - Jak Fisher

I've learnt a lot from then so please don't use that as an excuse. Besides, I was just about to post this from the reception section:

"At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the album received an average score of 61, which indicates "generally favorable reviews""

But another user has already reverted your edit with the same reason as mine. Iluvrihanna24 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit restriction violated

• You add material.
• Tomica removes it.
• You add it back.

Per your editing restriction, this has resulted in installation of an indefinite block.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?! One mistake after months of consistent progress and sticking to my restrictions and I get an indefinite block? My progress counts for nothing now? Thanks a lot! I've done so much work on articles, improving them, just look at my contributions and you will see the effort put in and time taken. I think this is very unfair to be honest. THudson24 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Try an unblock request. Perhaps another admin will be willing to unblock you under a different set of conditions. All I know is that you have shown yourself to be unable to accept other people removing things that you have added to Rihanna articles. I set up a very simple and clear set of conditions and restrictions for you to follow that included three chances for you to get it right, and you used up all three chances.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)