User talk:SNUGGUMS

Welcome to the talk page of XXSNUGGUMSXX

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, XXSNUGGUMSXX! Thank you for your contributions. I am Prabash.A and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Prabash.Akmeemana 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Status. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! It's a single. Get over it. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hummingbird Heartbeat, 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. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Smurfs 2 Premiere.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Smurfs 2 Premiere.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Hummingbird Heartbeat, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — Status (talk · contribs) 01:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Hummingbird Heartbeat, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You will be reported the next time. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Roar (song) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| This single = "'''Roar'''"<br>2013)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roar (song)

Why do you keep removing the PopCrush source and replacing it with terrible, less reliable sources (including one from Blogspot)? It's not up to you to decide which sources are reliable, because you are clearly confused here. Ar re 05:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been noticing the same about you. Either stop this nonsense of replacing reliable sources with crap else I will be forced to reporrt you. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These other users are being ridiculous. That website is NOT a blogspot website, it's an independently hosted website (just e-mail them on their contacts, they'll reply) and I don't know why we couldn't have both PopCrush and Film-Social's reviews up? [[User:Seffwiki|Seffwiki[[User talk:Seffwiki| 06:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

PopCrush isn't a reliable source because it's just a gossip site. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at PopCrush I can see it is definitely not a reliable source at all, so why replace the Film-Social one with it? I don't understand Arre 9 and IndianBio.Seffwiki (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not even talking about that Film-Social website. This user has been adding all of these other reviews from more questionable sources, while removing reliable sources such as PopCrush, and even removed USA Today/CBS News and The Huffington Post sources in favor of YouTube sources. Not just talking about the reception area. Seffwiki, what are you talking about? I'm not referring to Film-Social as the Blogspot website, I'm talking about this one - If I'm not wrong, this is a Blogspot blog. I'm sick of seeing YouTube sources (I mean they aren't completely bad, but when we have better third party sources, we should use them instead) used in the article. Also XXSNUGGUMSXX, PopCrush isn't a "gossip" site. You should look into sources first before you declare reliable sources as gossip sites and reference poor sources. Ar re 06:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arre 9, I'm sorry. I misunderstood what was going on. Though I do think you should keep those and also re-enter the Film-Social one. It seems to be a reliable site and seems to have consistent posts and reviews. My plate is full. Seffwiki (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seffwiki, you act like all that has occurred here is me replacing a 'Film-Social' website (Where even is that used? I see PopCrush used very commonly for song articles on Wikipedia, but never that) with PopCrush. That's not the case. User:XXSNUGGUMSXX has been constantly removing reliable sources, please see the "Roar" article history... sources such as Rolling Stone, Billboard, PopCrush, MTV News etc (which have been removed from this article in the past few days, not sure why) are often used for reception information, not the questionable sources XXSNUGGUMSXX insists on using... I have only been re-adding PopCrush (and other sources that they remove constantly) to show this user that removing reliably sourced content will not be tolerated.Ar re 06:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I didn't realize until looking over this user's entire talk page. Sounds to me like just a fan, then. Seffwiki 06:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never removed MTV or Rolling Stone or Billboard. In fact, those sources are ones I would suggest using in place of PopCrush or Huffington Post. I have in fact looked into PopCrush and Huffington Post, and have quite often seen them give inaccurate information (i.e. Huffington Post incorrectly reported Katy Perry was feuding with friend Rihanna when in fact there was nothing bad between them at all, and when Demi Lovato's estranged biogical father died, PopCrush gave the wrong impression of how things between the two were like.) I would highly suggest replacing those two sources with other ones. Also, I did NOT "constantly remove reliable sources"- that is an exaggeration. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Film-Social one and keep the PopCrush one with HuffPost, but don't remove MTV, Stone or Billboard.Seffwiki 22:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no- do NOT add PopCrush or HuffPost. Film-Social can be added. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? The Huffington Post and PopCrush are reliable, regardless of what you say. Almost every news service reports something wrong, including The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times... nobody even uses Film-Social, but they use Huffpost and PopCrush. You do constantly remove reliable sources, other editors could tell you the same thing. The proof is in the article's edit history. Don't deny it Ar re 06:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference: Los Angeles Times and New York Times only occasionally give wrong information while PopCrush and Huffington Post frequently give out false information. Due to their repeated inaccuracies, calling those reliable would be a mistake. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]