User talk:VítoR Valente

Welcome!

Hello, VítoR Valente, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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! --Amalthea 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rihanna

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia
I appreciate your enthusiasm for Rihanna and her article. However, I have a couple of comments converning your changes:

• In this edit you claimed that Good Girl Gone Bad was released 2007/2008 instead of 2007. Per the standard at WP:MUSTARD, we typically only list the first release of an album unless in a release history, and discount subsequent releases as remixes or in other countries. It should only list 2007 there.
• In the same edit, you added unverifiable rumors to the article, an album title that isn't confirmed in any reliable source whatsoever, and a film title that you admit is only "rumored". Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. Unless the rumor itself is noteworthy and was picked up by multiple reliable sources, it has no place in an encyclopaedic article.
• In the same edit, you removed the hatnote pointing at Rhianna and Rayhana. Rhianna and Rihanna are very often confused, and it is useful for the reader if he can easily spot his mistake. I myself have typed it incorrectly often enough, and was glad about the hatnote.
• In the same edit, you added that she was declared "Queen of R&B". Now, if that were a respected title or an award then it should be part of the article. If it came from a reliable source, it could be mentioned with proper attribution. It is neither, however. It originated from a page that is essentially a blog, the opinion of a Rocio. One of our pillars is that we have a neutral point of view. Unless there is a reliable source calling her that, it mustn't be added to the article. Other Wikipedia projects accepting it has no part in it; they have their standards, and we have ours.
• I explained all that in short in my edit summary. Nevertheless, you undid my changes without any such explanation, which is very rude. [1][2]
• With those unreflected undos you also reintroduced incorrect capitalization, punctuation and spacing that you introduced with your first change.

If you disagree with any of the above, I urge you to come to Talk:Rihanna and explain why you feel those changes improve the article. Parts of your changes have been undone by several editors, it's not just me who disagrees with them. You were bold, you were reverted, it's time to discuss. I will fix those problems I explained above, since I know that I am supported by consensus with them. If you want to change that consensus, please come to the talkpage and start a discussion. --Amalthea 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Good Girl Gone Bad was been released in 2007 and 2008...

the blogs have to be followed by:. blogspot.com or Blog.com

Not a blog, how can confirm on Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by :Vitorvicentevalente (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. A blog is a concept, and very much independant of any domain or web service. But let's keep the discussion at your place. --Amalthea 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Amalthea 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that you disregarded my opinion so completely, and didn't address any of the points I left you above. By my count, five different editors have undone your changes by now. What you're doing right now, on both Rihanna and Rihanna discography is edit warring against both consensus and policy. You are also intentionally introducing clear misinformation into the articles. I mentioned the rumors above: If you can present even one reliable source to confirm the upcoming album title or the film title, please show it. Your unrefelected undos also again left the punctuation and spacing errors in the article. Stop undoing blindly, and doublecheck your edits. That sales figure in the discography is plain wrong. From what I'm seeing, you're taking the unsourced number of world wide sales from the Portugese Wikipedia, and add the number of sales in the US to it. How is that supposed to make sense? And I don't understand what your edit summary of "not because they see someone who needs to sources, there may be a source who put UPDATED" is trying to say.
I very strongly urge you to read our policies and guidelines on WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDIT WAR, WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES. Please remember that other editors who disagree with your changes also have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, also only want to improve the article, and since you are fairly new here please accept that they might just be right, and might know the policies better than you do.
Your proper response should now be to try and convince us – not through persistant reversions (for which you would be blocked very very quickly), but through discussions on the respective talk pages of the articles.
Amalthea 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Portugese Wikipedia accpet this citation, and there because you do not like Rihanna's does not have to be modified, since the fact that Rihanna is the Queen of R&B is very well spoken, the more free encyclopedia Wikipedia and a shame in the face and has not threaten anyone, because if you believe I blocks will not be fine, too, does not know what I can ...User:Vitorvicentevalente12:35, 15 January 2009

I'm unsure what you're trying to say. I am not threating you at all, I'm informing you of the rules at the English Wikipedia.
You do not own the Rihanna article. If there is disagreement, we talk. Since we last spoke, yet another editor has reverted your change and referred you to the talk page, where an anonymous editor has also voiced his disagreement with your addition. Despite that, you chose to undo my edit yet another time, in toto, which means you have brought back the punctuation error as well as the factual errors. I'm very sorry, but I can only consider this editing style as disruptive. --Amalthea 00:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've consequently reported this at the noticeboard for edit warring. Can we please try to compromise on Talk:Rihanna? The current state of the article is, as I explained above, very much incorrect. --Amalthea 01:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)