User talk:SayaamRulz

May 2013[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Kesha has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Kesha was changed by SayaamRulz (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882433 on 2013-05-19T20:19:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kesha discography with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Ke$ha Logo Awards 2013.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ke$ha Logo Awards 2013.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Please do not insert incorrect, incomplete and/or unsourced information to articles (particularly removing reliable sources in order to inflate any music sales or certifications without leaving a new source to back up your claim). Your recent edits have been reverted.
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - eo (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:KeshaNewNowNext.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:KeshaNewNowNext.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 14:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Ke$ha NewNowNext.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ke$ha NewNowNext.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 14:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Ke$ha NewNowNext Awards.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ke$ha NewNowNext Awards.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Ke$ha Logo NewNowNext.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Ke$ha Logo NewNowNext.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 15:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing sourced data with unsourced content[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Kesha discography. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ke$ha Logo NewNowNext.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Ke$ha Logo NewNowNext.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. Simeondahl (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:KeshaNewNowNext.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:KeshaNewNowNext.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

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. Simeondahl (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013[edit]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Kesha_discography. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.
Do not refer to another editor as "some idiot" as you did in your summary for this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 11:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Idiot"[edit]

Re: this edit of yours. It's not a result of being an "idiot". Take a look at WP:Record charts#Billboard charts, where it clearly states "On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position). It should be indicated as an uncharted song with a footnote to indicate the Bubbling Under peak. ".—Kww(talk) 16:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inflating certifications[edit]

The certifying body in the United States is the RIAA. This is the source confirming sales. Blogspots, message boards and Kesha fanpages are not acceptiable, reliable sources. It is also not our job as editors to assume certifications or to manually add up sales figures ourselves. Stop doing this.
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Kesha discography. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. - eo (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications[edit]

Certifications are not automatic: crossing a certain number of sales does not lead to a certification level. After the sales are made, the record label has to pay the RIAA a fee. Then the RIAA runs an audit and verifies the sales figures. Then, if the sales are successfully verified, the RIAA will issue a certification. You can't point to a sales level to source a certification: you have to use references that specifically state that the certification agency issued the certification.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry discography[edit]

Hi

I reverted this edit, where you removed Hummingbird Heartbeat. Although you did put some reasoning in your edit summary, there is a very clear comment in the text asking that the single not be removed, and pointing you to existing discussion(s).

In those circumstances, rather than just making the edit, where it is clear there is contention, and that just making an undiscussed change may continue an existing edit war, it really is incumbent on editors to gain consensus on the talk page for such a change, and I would ask that you do so, both in this case, and in future, both to avoid your edits being reverted in this way, and to further our aims of collaborative, thoughtful and harmonious encyclopaedia editing.

Thank you for understanding that we are here to work together, and that discussion is always preferable to conflict. Begoon ^talk 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I note that your latest edit removed correct information which was easily sourced. If you don't want to contribute positively then I struggle to see why you contribute at all. You could enjoy editing here if you changed your frame of mind - or you can alienate all your fellow contributors and be a battling grouch. Your choice, really, but it seems an awful waste of your time to carry on the way you are until everyone else just gets bored with it. Just an opinion, and free advice which you can take or leave. Begoon ^talk 20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Katy Perry discography 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kesha discography. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - eo (talk) 11:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing of various kinds, including edit warring, as you have done at Katy Perry discography and Kesha discography, repeated removal of article content and sources without explanation or with very inadequate explanation, and repeatedly adding content sourced only to unreliable sources such as blogs. You have taken very little heed of numerous messages about the problems with your editing. This is a short block, to make it clear that your current pattern of editing is unacceptable. When the block expires, please edit in collaboration with other editors, and be willing to accept consensus, rather than persistently trying to unilaterally impose your own preferred version. If you can't do that, there is a risk that you may become blocked for a much longer time. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi. Hope you're well.

Remember this post you made: A message from SayaamRulz (archive link...)?

Please, when you come back, consider what you and I said there, and don't just fall straight back into undiscussed edit-warring to reinstate your preferred version(s). You have a lot to contribute, but I'm just concerned that you don't get locked into a "vicious spiral" of working "against" your fellow editors instead of collaborating with them. It would be a shame to see things deteriorate like that. Take care. Begoon ^talk 04:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discographies[edit]

Hey ... taken what you've said into account ... and I just wanted to say I didn't mean to DISRUPT anything ... I just noticed that when I tried to change the certs on Ke$ha discography to match the sales figures ... someone told me that certifications SHOULDN'T necessarily match ... and I thought that was the way it was supposed to BE until I saw Jennifer Lopez discography where there were SALES for SINGLES too and I thought it was weird on other artists' pages where only ALBUMS had referenced sales and not singles so on Ke$ha discography(somehow) I managed to ADD sales but on Katy Perry discography, I just managed to replace the certifications as I didn't think they were important ... a lot of them were outdated and couldn't represent WORLD figures so I thought I would make it better and the edits just got reverted when I thought I was making it BETTER ... it wasn't ABOUT having to be RIGHT ... it was about improving the articles. Anyway, you said that you could help? Now that I've given you MY side of the story, if you could or at least just reply - it would be much appreciated ... Happy editing :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SayaamRulz (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can do to help is to remind you that we edit together, all of us. It doesn't matter if you think you are right, if consensus doesn't agree with you. It also doesn't matter if you think you know better than every editor who disagrees with you how to improve the article. It matters that you discuss these things calmly on talk pages, and accept the majority consensus. It matters that you don't edit war your preferred versions in. It matters that you are prepared to listen to other viewpoints.

You can attempt to convince people of your point of view - that's great - it's discussion - and when it's done calmly and productively it's what we're all about.

But the important thing to realise is that your point of view is one of many, and if it's different to consensus, well... consensus is king. Always. Edit warring without discussion is wrong. Always. If you get reverted, you discuss - you don't just revert again. You can put your point of view on the talkpage (once only is best), then you listen to other points of view. Eventually a calm consensus will emerge. Simple. It might not always be the one you would prefer. That's life. Happens to me all the time. If I couldn't accept that, well, I couldn't edit here. Same goes for you, and everyone else.

It's really about how you approach editing here - if you collaborate, everything will be fine. If you just stubbornly revert your point of view in, against consensus, it won't. We've all seen that many times, and it always turns out the same.

That's all I've got... Begoon ^talk 16:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Kesha discography, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SayaamRulz. This is the first time I have looked at your editing since the 4th of October. I have just had a look to see how you have been getting on with editing since your block expired. What I have seen has included several of the same problems which led to the block, including persistent edit warring, and repeated adding of content which is not supported by any sources, and in at least some cases is directly contradicted by reliable sources. You do not seem to have taken on board any of the advice you have been given about such matters as consensus, listening to other points of view, and so on. What is more, I also see that you created a fake user page for another user, containing content which purported to come from that user (Kworbi), and doing that is pure and unadulterated vandalism. You were told at the time of your last block that continuing the same sort of disruptive editing might lead to being blocked for a much longer time, and, considering that you have both continued the same sort of thing and started outright vandalism, I have blocked you for one month. When the block is over, please try to take on board all the things that have been said to you in various messages from various editors about the problems with your editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using User:DollarSignAyaam to evade blocks on this account. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]