May 2018

edit
 
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
 
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).

173.175.217.135 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Hello. I don't believe anyone read the information provided before concluding my edits were "disruptive." It also looks like things I posted on talk pages were rolled back to remove this information.

Decline reason:

hile I'm not necessarily convinced your edits were disruptive, it's also the case that you didn't provide a reliable citation (chat forums don't count). You may want to consider the WP:AFD process once your block expires. Yamla (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2018 (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.

Please do not modify declined unblock requests. Note there are multiple citations on that article, so it is your responsibility to prove it's a fraud, or that all of the citations are invalid. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

That was accidental. I posted on another editor's page that there were actually NO citations on the main page (seriously, look) and that the links on the album page don't provide any information. This one for example is supposed to prove the band recorded an MTV album: http://www.portuguesecharts.com/showitem.asp?interpret=Flerte+Fatal&titel=Ac%FAstico+MTV&cat=a

There was also a pre-existing "citation needed" box at the top from 2015 that was also removed.

 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

173.175.217.135 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

It is very hard to prove a negative when someone is fabricating information. But I was not trying to be disruptive, only to prevent the user from spreading this misinformation across the Internet. I am new and do not know exactly the best way to do that, but you can see he's done something similar on the Portuguese wiki: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Victorporto98 173.175.217.135 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Accept reason:

I'll add comments in a moment. Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  • I've unblocked you. The main reason I blocked you was because you retagged the article as a hoax after an editor had removed it. Any editor may remove a speedy tag except the creator of the article, and it is not appropriate to retag it once that happened. I noticed that there were no references in the article. I also noticed how poorly written the article was, fully of hype, etc. But I looked at the songs/albums articles, and they had sources that looked real, so I figured it couldn't be a hoax. However, after I blocked you I checked some of those sources, and they don't exist, not one of them. I also did a Google search and had trouble finding any evidence that the band exists. So, this is what I am going to do: I will nominate the article for deletion and let others do additional research to see if this is an elaborate hoax perpetrated by a single editor (as far as I know, there's only one who created this network of articles). You're welcome to comment at the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hoax

edit

I am SO sorry about making the assumption that the article was real. I didn't look into enough and now I am doing my best to tag all articles related to it. This really is a huge hoax. Again, I'm sorry for that. Best regards, TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar for you!

edit
  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
THANK YOU for finding that elaborately hidden hoax. Kudos to you! TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Welcome!

edit

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (173.175.217.135) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing! TheRealWeatherMan (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply