User talk:VítoR Valente/Archive1

Rihanna genres

Hi Vitorvicentelavente, I noticed on the Rihanna article you've been reverting the genres back to your own version, while other editors have reverted you and left note in their edit summaries why. Rather than revert-war over it, would you mind commenting it this discussion please? Thanks. Acalamari 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post there, so thank you for doing that. :) Discussing the situation will help greatly to resolve the matter. Best wishes. Acalamari 21:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rude Boy Remix.jpg

Hello, Vitor

You added a {{Non-free use rationale}} template to the File:Rude Boy Remix.jpg image. In a second edit, you deleted more than half of the Purpose entry that had been there (I guess you copied everything from somewhere else). However the part that you left, "The image is used for identification in the context of critical commentary of the work for which it serves as cover art. It makes a significant contribution to the user's understanding of the article, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone.", is entirely untrue and, therefore, inadequate.

Do you have another basis for including this image in Rude Boy (song) (or any other WP article)? The rationale that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately illustrate the copyrighted music video" is also not useful. The article would not suffer from the absence of the image, which doesn't actually illustrate anything (and certainly not a video). Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Te Amo/ Stop edit warring

Ok i didnt realise you'd changed the genre back to Latin from Latin Pop - Latin is correct genre. I've removed sound savvy because its not a detailed enough explaination of why the song is dance.

Finally you cannot use digitalspy to source a UK release for the song. in the edit summary you said 'amazon, itunes etc. sourcea are not allowed'. that's wrong. they are allowed to source releases and fact is they are not showing the single as being availble on may 24. in fact they've not even listed the single at all. Neither has 7digital nor HMV. does not appear to be on the cards. using review website digitalspy at a source for the UK release would then be WP:OR. Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna's Box office.

If you remove some numbers because you can't check the sources you should do the same with London numbers because the source only says that it was sold out and nothing else. Something else, when the press talk about sold out shows it doesn´t mean that was 100% sold out, a 93% show sold it is consider a sold out show. I think we still can keep the box office numbers because you can´t check the source because you don't have an account on Billboard. We should go to the discussion page before doing anything else. Billboard.biz it is the source that it is been used in almost all the Box office numbers in Wikipedia. Sorry for my english.Albes29 (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last Girl on Earth live performance pics

Hi, do you perhaps have any pics of Rihanna performing "Rehab" at the concert that can be used for the song Rehab (Rihanna song)? Please let me know. Thanks. - Blizzard01 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

The administrator has blocked me for no apparent reason, just because the source is not reverted by saying "dance-pop." Next, I removed the genre without source and they had not put the other for any confusion. Even so, the administrator has blocked unfairly, based on a comment made in your talk page by the user that insists on putting one gender without source. And note: only reverted twice in the same case, the third time the genre was correct.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is based on cooperation and collaboration- we make decisions through consensus. You indicate that you are not able to hear people who disagree with you, and so you won't be able to participate in the process of seeking consensus with other users. I can't see any possibility other than a block, especailly as this block request also doesn't indicate any interest in working together with other users to seek consensus. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:09, 11 September 2010 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Comment below.

Decline reason:

Despite being repeatedly blocked for edit warring, you still don't even seem to understand what it is or why we do not tolerate it. Unless and until such time as you can clearly demonstrate that you do understand these points you should remain blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2010 (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.

Now I understand that for you "dance music" is just an expression. I did mess with the genres, and reverted twice without reason. But third, I was convinced it was doing the right thing by putting just the kind referenced. I only ask to reduce my time blocking, and I apologize to the administrator as rude by the way I treated the subject. Not going to happen again.Vítor&R (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason for making this talk page read upside down? English readers normally read from top to bottom in chronological order; the change you made recently makes this talk page very confusing to English speaking readers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it is confusing to you, I'll leave as you want. But I'm still looking for a rule or something that talks about it. Vítor&R (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Wikipedia rule; if you want your talk page to be difficult to understand, you're allowed to have it that way- but you will probably find that helpful editors will 'fix' it for you just about every time they talk to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was only to separate the issue since now I understand that I'm wrong with genres, because to you "dance music" is an expression. Unaware, and I was a bit rude. Just wanted to reduce the block time, but I'll wait. Vítor&R (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being confused about genres is one thing, however when I tried to explain to you why I changed your edit [1], you blanked it with a rude comment [2] and then, to make absolutely sure I would see that you deleted and ignored my comment, you posted the diff on my Talk Page [3]. How is this productive? The reason your block is this length is because this is your sixth block. Each one has been longer than the last, and still you continue to edit war, act uncivil, and then backpedal when you are blocked. - eo (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This time, you're right. I didn't handle the situation the best way, also the last time we crossed, accused me of sockpuppetry, and having proved that it was not me, you don't even apologized. Now, I apologize for my behavior, because it was not the best. Vítor&R (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone reverse this edit, because the user changed the order of the genres, as can be seen here. Vítor&R (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want it changed to "Dance-Pop, Pop, Contemporary R&B", the order Allmusic uses for the styles of the album? That's new. Amalthea 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, the main genre is R&B, so the previous edition was the right. (R&B, pop, dance-pop) Vítor&R (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Name Genre Revert

The first genre listed as ska cannot be supported by the providing link which is this because that article talks about a remix of the song What's My Name? I'm sorry but the second genre listed as electronica can be disputed in the supporting link from 4Music which is a review of Loud and no where states the song is Electronica, for references check this link. AllMusic is meets the WP: Credibility and WP: Reliability criteria and while it's a summation of the entire album, the genre is more closely linked to this article than your provided sources. I request it is made to either Pop or R&B because ska is pre-reggae and anyone can tell this is not any form of ska. Electronica deals with a huge amount of electronic beats, examples may include Lights. A consensus is need to be made for this because currently the genres listed can be and are disputed. Kevon100 ^Talk! _{If you're ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻} 20:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]