Necroshine95

Necroshine95, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Necroshine95! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. We hope to see you there! Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Overkill

Hi there. What are your sources for the exact release dates on Overkill's albums? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

So I gotta ask again: you keep adding these exact release dates, but such statements on Wikipedia need a source. Even just one will do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, that's three times now. Still waiting for those sources. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it's been about three months, and you're still adding unsourced content to a multitude of heavy metal album articles (mainly that of Overkill). Clearly this is a single-purpose account, but still.. All these sales figures you keep adding repeatedly without neither edit summaries nor sources makes it increasingly hard not to view your contributions as unconstructive, bearing in mind that the onus is on you to provide evidence for such statements. I'm still interested to know where you're getting these figures from. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding reason for discussion. The thread is thread name of the discussion.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is here NE Ent 12:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Necroshine95. I am Dianna and I am an administrator on this wiki. Sources are required for all additions to Wikipedia. Right now all your edits are being removed because they lack sources, and some additions have proven to be false. Please stop adding unsourced and /or incorrect information immediately, or you could be blocked from editing. -- Dianna (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Long term vandalism and insertion of unsourced information. Per this ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

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).

Necroshine95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, (Im new to this so I hope Im doing this right) I understand that I have been blocked from editing due to my lack of sources. I have since found sources for the majority of the facts that I have previously put on wikipedia. I have learned to not put unsourced information on pages and will not do so again. Hopefully this is being done correctly to where you can see my message.Necroshine95 (talk) 02:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have now stated that your account has been used by one or more of your friends. That means that the account is compromised, and a compromised account cannot ever be unblocked. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

Necroshine95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Since my account has been compromised, may I create a new account? I do not intend to damage or slander any articles, just add new information/ touch up some details (in a good way of course). Necroshine95 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So not only are you completely innocent of all charges and your friend did it using your account, but you speculate that the same friend might also have created the Phantomlord95 account (though you don't appear to actually know), which has a surprising similarity to your account name and which was used extensively to make exactly the same kind of problematic edits as you? Hmm, now let me just check when I was born... nope, it wasn't yesterday. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Are you sure? lol I'm just kidding, but I did tell him about some edits I made that were erased (I didn't put citations is why is was erased) and he had made actual edits on the account in addition to goofing around. The reason I have 95 in my name is because that's the year I was born, my friend was also born in 1995 (a few months before me) so thats probably why he has 95 in it, and I named mine after an Overkill song and I guess he named his after a Metallica song idk why I'll ask em later he's comin over in a bit.

I'm sorry, but the more you make up obviously fake explanations, the less credible you are becoming - I'd say your only chance is to come clean about the whole thing, and go for the Standard offer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, If I say It's not real than can we just unblock me and I can add the stuff I found along with links?

At this point, you do not get to negotiate conditions. You can be 100% honest and we can take it from there - though you will be very unlikely to be immediately unblocked, which is why I suggested the Standard offer. Or you can simply stay blocked permanently. Those are really your only choices. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whataya mean negotiate conditions? I was able to do that?

No, I mean you have one more chance to come clean, without conditions - tell us the 100% truth, or I will remove your ability to edit this talk page. (Also, you must not remove discussion relating to your block while you are blocked, as reviewing admins need to be able to see it all). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. My friend didnt make the account, I did. Ive gone on it with him however to goof around with some articles, be we (mostly I) changed it back within a few minutes.

OK, in that case, I'm happy to make the Standard Offer, and I have added a section below - I look forward to hearing from you in six months. (Or if you disagree with my judgment, I will not object to your making one further unblock request, at the bottom of the page, and I will leave it for someone else to decide.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I'll see u in 6 months if it works though, I'll see you tommorow. Also if I may ask, why is my IP Address banned? What is the purpose of that?

Your IP is blocked to stop you editing logged-out, which I presume you have just tried to do. You, the person, are not allowed to edit while this block is active, and that means neither logged in nor logged out. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

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).

Necroshine95 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked originally because I added information to pages without giving citations to confirm my findings, I had also goofed around on some of the pages, I did change them back after though. I have since learned not to toy with wikipedia articles and have found links confirming the majority of the information I had put on said pages. If unblocked, I plan to add only accurate information that's missing from pages, I will also add more details to pages that I think need more, in the good way not the destructive type of way.Necroshine95 (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Standard offer. Note that this is not an entitlement to an unblock in six months; you will still need to provide a detailed unblock appeal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

Arbitrary header

You seem to be blocked for several things. Can you explain the Phantomlord95 (talk · contribs) account and the edits it made? Kuru (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And THIS. Max Semenik (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I can explain but I can't. I am not associated with that account (although I love the song) but I think that it would probably be one of my friends who come over almost everyday. They use the computer too and have used my Necroshine95 account to joke with some articles before, (I will admit that the St.Anger one was me but I changed it back after.) but I was not aware of the Phantomlord95 account until I got a message about it.

• For an account that you didn't even know about, the number of coincidences between Phantomlord95 and your account are absolutely astonishing. Even two friends rarely if ever show so many similarities of so many quite different kinds. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well we have alot of similar interests like Metal (a reason why we're friends), what did they edit/add?

I am really not so stupid as to come to any conclusion just because two editors have "similar interests". Nor am I so stupid as to explain to you how you gave yourself away, so that you can avoid making the same mistakes again. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Whataya mean? what did he even edit and I gave myself away about what? Look all I want is my account back so I can add true information to articles (and include the citations) I have no intention of toying with pages like my friend does (although I did do it once).

The standard offer

As per Wikipedia:Standard offer,

1. Wait six months without sockpuppetry.
2. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block.
3. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (Offer rescinded - see below)

I have refrained from answering your unblock request, but I feel that the standard offer is the best deal you are going to get (I would not have offered it) and I suggest you accept. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note for future Standard offer unblock requests - socking has continued at User:XGabriel1986X and User:XGabriel86X, with the latest dating to January 10. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  I've rescinded the Standard offer I made after the behaviour at User talk:XGabriel86X. Anyone else, of course, is welcome to make any offers they deem appropriate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur. I have blocked talk page access for user:XGabriel1986X, but indicated that any further request should come here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Necroshine95 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)