Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Billboard Brasil. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 17:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Vitor, could you please explain your removal of the Platinum certification in Canada? Me and Zylo1994 are very confused about your reasons for doing so. Especially as you seem to be the user who added that certification on the 12th of April. Thanks Cjeam (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you mean that certification is only for the album called 'The best damn thing' and not for the song from the album? Cjeam (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry about that. It didn't produce a template at that location on the page that I could see, so I assumed it was just gibberish/vandalism. I wasn't aware of it's actual purpose. My apologies for the removal and the mistaken warning. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Cosmetic Executive Women requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PoeticVerse (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the Brazil chart to Baby (Justin Bieber song). The only music chart from Brazil allowed on Wikipedia is from the ABPD per WP:GOODCHARTS. Candyo32 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning, Im reverting your addition for the following reasons. 1) The chart currently follows Chart Macro, Your revision is of the old chart. 2) Brazil Charts fall under Bad Charts, it states "Brazil Hot 100/Hot100Brasil: This chart's article was deleted by deletion discussion as a non-notable chart with dubious methodology." 3) Under Good Charts it states the following "The singles charts at Billboard Brasil are acceptable, but not archived. These charts can be included only by referencing the physical magazine, not the online chart." Your reference is not to the physical magazine. If you add it again it will be considered disruptive editing and may violate 3RR and could be blocked from editing. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 22:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few things on this controversy:

• First, edit warring is bad. I'm not going to fiddle with any of the blocks just because Vitor Mazuco was arguably right.
• Second, Crowley Broadcast Analysis is a reliable source of information: the equivalent of Nielsen for Brazil. Their charts are quite reliable, and are the basis for the Billboard Brasil charts.
• Third, I've never liked it when editors find links to these internal PDFs and use them. They are basically leaks of private information. Crowley does not publish a top 20 for public consumption. Vitor should have waited until the information was published in a public source, not a random PDF.
• Finally, the bit about mixing chart macros and old references is meaningless. The macro is specifically designed to be mixed with manual references. There's just no way for any macro to anticipate every case, especially with Billboard's site being as buggy as it is. There's nothing wrong about mixing manual and macro charts.—Kww(talk) 12:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but and now? What will happen? You will adopt the Crowley in the charts? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 12:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never had an issue with the chart, all i wanted was a source explaining that the chart was allowed which you didnt provide, you just kept saying "its allowed". If your going to add something be prepared to back it up, Lil-unique wasnt even involved in this conflict but he managed to provide me with 3 discussions involving this here. All i needed was the discussions or some form of approval and i would have dropped the issue. I wasnt inclined to take you word for it considering you kept linking me to a page that you created which didnt discuss if it was a legitimate chart. (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 16:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Here is from Folha de S. Paulo this is a simple test for to show the Crowley is a official and content with credibility. It show the Crowley Charts, and this website, shows all the weekly charts, but only show the Top 20. For me the just problem, is that the official website. And i look This site that show the Crowley Charts. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what im saying, you could link me to 500 websites if you wanted, what i needed was a discussion on Wikipedia regarding that charts and if they were proven to be factual and allowed in articles. I know they are an actual chart but i didnt know if they were to be used or not. The brazil hot 100 has dozens of googable websites but its been discussed and the result was its not to be used. I didnt know if The CBA was discussed or not, thats what i wanted :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 19:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that this link will disappear in a couple of months. You need to use WebCite or something similar to provide a permanent link to the site. Otherwise, the chart position will be deleted when the link goes dead.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, this website will not disappear in a couple of months, but if happen, we may to chance for a phisical charts, no? Or similar situation. But now, is necessary to change the WP:GOODCHARTS and to put Crowley how a good, not bad. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crowley isn't listed at WP:BADCHARTS. It won't be listed at WP:GOODCHARTS until it has a permanent archive. The charts you pointed out to me in January are gone from the site now. It looks like they only keep the last two months.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control Room – Live EP, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop providing unconstructive edits to an AfD nomination. Only include discussion regarding the proposed deletion. Further disruptions may result in your loss of editing privileges. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Firework (Katy Perry song), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

   As of now, the song is not notable. Please do not recreate it. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but this single has already the single cover, see here and will relase betimes. And for this, has many source that. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 00:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fake single cover. If you click on the picture and look at its URL, you will see that it is clearly fan-made. Also, the English Wikipedia is not the Portuguese Wikipedia, with different policies. As of now, the song is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, I don't know what "betimes" means. Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm having some difficulty understanding what you're trying to say. But I think I've made the point clear about non-notability of the song to have its own article? Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Loud (Rihanna album). Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Please stop adding Avril Lavigne. A sample and a collaboration are completely different things. While MTV is a reliable source, I think you have read the article wrong, and extrapolated its meaning. Thanks. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, "I'm with You" will be sampled. This is not a collaboration. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Writing is not collaborating. And a reliable, verifiable source is needed. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sorry: I don't understand you. Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't think you understand the situation here. One of Avril Lavigne's songs, "I'm with You", is being sampled for Rihanna's supposed track "Cheers". Yes, Lavigne is a co-writer of the 2002 single, but that doesn't mean she's working on Loud. Lavigne is not writing anything new specifically for this album, and nothing in the source you provided supports this. Your edits claim Lavigne is working for Rihanna's fifth studio album, but this is in fact, false. Do you understand? Yvesnimmo (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Loud (Rihanna album), you may be blocked from editing. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Please stop. The information you are providing is false. It is also not supported by the source. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, please stop your disruptive editing. I think I've made myself clear that the edits you claim to be true are, in fact, not and unsupported by the sources. Yes, MTV News is reliable, but what you are adding is not in the article. If you continue, you may be blocked for your edits. Yvesnimmo (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed this dispute, and will say that while I am not sure whether Vitor is intentionally adding false information or is having difficulty with English comprehension, the material Vitor is in no way supported by the source he is providing. Do not reinsert it, Vitor. You will face a block for edit-warring and adding false information to articles if you do.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no you are not understanting about it, Avril Lavigne contribute for that album, she wrote ALL that song she is a songwriting. I'll put in that article again in a diferent form. You are not the boss in all article here, that's why i do not contribute in wiki-en, here is horrible. This notice can not stay away. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 18:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it may be a comprehension problem, but believe me, the material you added before was false, and the material that Ericorbit reverted just didn't make sense. When people start reverting you and trying to explain that your edits are wrong, you need to listen to them. It's good that your English is good enough to allow you to contribute, as long as you accept that it being your second language will cause you to make mistakes.—Kww(talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I puted and that notice i'll stay there. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. What can be said to make you understand the edits you are making are incorrect? Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that notice i'll stay there. You can not remove just because you want, that notice has good refs and is important for the article. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect. What do you not understand about that? Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, why i can't put this notice there? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: your first versions were wrong because being sampled is not a form of collaboration, as Yvesnimmo told you repeatedly and patiently. The edits you made today were gibberish: they made no sense whatsoever. You've been blocked because even though you you were reverted by five different editors and warned multiple times, you proceeded. Removing the block notice isn't against the rules, but note that you won't be able to make unblock requests without it.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for promising to repeat edit once block expires. Any admin can lift this block once Vitor states that he understands Wikipedia policies against edit warring, and indicates that he will not immediately reinstate the edit that triggered this block. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 21:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Ok i will not put that notice again, but is no necessery Block me indefinitely, i want my free acont.}}

Kww i nedeed my account, i can not stay blocked forever. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you want your account back. You were blocked not just for threatening to do it again, though. You were also blocked for not understanding our edit warring policy. Can you show me that you understand why you were blocked?—Kww(talk) 23:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocked for edit warring. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you seem to have agreed not to continue the edit war once the block expires, I've reset the block to the original expiry time. Just remember: the talk page is there for a reason. Please make use of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks HJ Mitchell, but for this and others things i don't contribute here. I prefer my Wiki-pt, there is more peaceful with who wants edit in some article. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 00:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's intentionally trying to create a non-"peaceful" or "horrible" environment here on the English Wikipedia. Ever. We are just trying to make you realize your recent additions to Loud (Rihanna album) are incorrect, and that should be evidenced by the persistent reversions. Yvesnimmo (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly am not trying to make your life miserable, and you should note that multiple editors reverted you. The quality of your edits on Portuguese Wikipedia is probably higher, because you are dealing in your mother tongue there. If you would calm down when people start to revert you here and realize that it's probably a comprehension problem, things would go better for you.—Kww(talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my english is bad, improve that notice for me? Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be improved if it is incorrect. That is something you have to understand. Yvesnimmo (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's right. Think it though, Vitor: Rihanna could have sampled the song in exactly the same way if Avril Lavigne was dead. That shows that Avril Lavigne is not contributing to the album.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, put that notice correctly. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 16:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one added any version of it after reviewing your source, the general consensus seems to be that it is trivia. If there's a song article at some future point, I'd add the fact that it sampled a Lavigne song there.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I give up trying to make you understand. Vitor Mazuco ^Msg 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]