Vanessa Aragon NY
Versus EP edit
editMetacritic: "For each review found, we will take the score given by the critic and convert it to a 0-100 point scale. (For those critics who do not provide a score, we'll assign a score from 0-100 based on the general impression given by the review.)" [1] Also, did u notice that the reviews' ratings u changed are not present at the review? Boston Globe, Billboard. Dan56 (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
September 2010
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Raymond v. Raymond, 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. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Raymond v. Raymond was changed by Vanessa Aragon NY (u) (t) deleting 8315 characters on 2010-09-12T00:02:56+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National Basketball Association. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- On wikipedia, editors try to reach a consensus on a potentially controversial edit. About.com as a professional review site is disputable, so please add to the discussion first. Dan56 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Recovery (Eminem album). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Vanessa Aragon NY (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't know how I was blocked. I am not even a man
Decline reason:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony254trill/Archive#18 September 2010 provides that you made a similar edit to a sockpuppet of Tony254trill and so a checkuser investigated and lo and behold, confirmed technically that you and the other were editing from the same place. You would need to provide some extraordinary evidence to overcome this finding.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
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.