Tnt718

May 2013

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Prisoner of Conscious (album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 04:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Prisoner of Conscious (album). 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. STATic message me! 04:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia and make personal attacks, as you did at User talk: STATicVerseatide, you may be blocked from editing. All Music is clearly a reliable source. Another case of vandalism or personal attack on me or anyone else will result in you being blocked. STATic message me! 06:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. 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) 04:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Marek69, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. STATic message me! 07:00, 10 May 2013 (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).

Tnt718 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

TNT718 didn't use multiple accounts. This whole dispute stems from wanting to add my client's proper credits (Brandon TNT West) on the song Ready Set Go, which is on the album Prisoner of Conscious by Talib Kweli. Darnell Saadiq Bolden and Brandon West produced and composed the record for Talib Kweli which features Melanie Fiona. For whatever reason the person who edited the page for the album Prisoner... got his info from an online source. We gave the 2 editors, who disputed our added credits, the actual song credits from the album. We also stated to the editor that they could call or research with ASCAP and verify this info. Honestly ALL album work on Wikipedia should be properly checked to ensure that all composers are given proper credit. BMI, SESAC and ASCAP can all verify participants on any record recorded in the music business. The editor STATicVerseatide was very rude and belligerent and stated that he was only going to follow this one source, Allmusic.com. After several people, including STATicVerseatide tried to 'online scold us' accusing us of being vandals of course we fired back. No one likes to be bullied, ESPECIALLY when your telling the truth. You have ask yourself "Would someone really go thru such madness with online "cops" if there wasn't some shred of truth? I have real life that's not online...But honestly they who really dispute facts could download the song from itunes and see the credits. Yes there were some negative things written and no we won't apologize, but we responded to everyone who seemed to have something to say to back up STATicVerseatide. Odd thing is though no one checked the album credits. We should unblocked because we're not vandals. Don't we have a right to present facts? But trust me no one is losing sleep over this.. to say

Decline reason:

First - accounts cannot be shared. Second accounts cannot represent an organization or company. Third, Conflict of Interest is bad. Fourth, promoting your "client" is not permitted. Now, the fact that you attacked another editor, don't seem to understand the consensus model of this project or indeed how to obtain new consensus are almost secondary. I'm sorry that I'm having to be a bit blunt with you, but you agreed to a number of rules - now you seem to believe they don't apply (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:07, 10 May 2013 (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).

Tnt718 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First off as we stated the account isn't shared. This isn't a "sock-whatever" you guys call it account. We're just speaking in 3rd person. Secondly this account doesn't rep a company. Third the only conflict of interest is that some of Wikipedia's editors don't get their info from a reliable source. Fourth, what is BWILKINS talking about??? There is no promo going on. A fact was placed in the template, not for promotional purposes but because its factual. Nobody attacked any editors without being provoked. Maybe nice words weren't said (typed) but that happened on both sides of the fence (look at the history). If there is no one who is willing to listen and reason with our side but instead be rude then why be cordial? Especially when people are getting at you like your wrong AND WE STAND ON THE FACTS. Nobody over here gets off on internet beefs. Nobody is going to kiss any ass or play nice in the sandbox to get a block removed. Trust there is more than one computer lying around so if we wanted to be wreckless, we could. The point is no one is trying to be, so don't insinuate so. We felt just as disrespected as the editor(s) who caught the wrath. This block isn't fair nor warranted. We presented the facts and where the facts could be verified. If you use an internet source it should be factual not what some 3rd party online source says or writes... y

Decline reason:

Per above and below; we do not permit multiple users on one account. And if this rant is your idea of coherent reasoning and argument, you have other problems besides this that would create problems for you while editing Wikipedia. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2013 (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.

Actually, you're not speaking in the third person. You're using the first person plural, which is for use by certain royal persons speaking as monarchs, and otherwise by groups of two plus or by individuals speaking on behalf of a group, company or organisation. We (and I speak for other editors here) see a lot of company name accounts created. The majority of then are purely here for promotional purposes. Some are here to look after their (or their clients') interests without promoting. The rule is 'one account, one individual'. No company accounts, no multi-user accounts. That is not negotiable. As to your editing - if you provide a reliable independent source that's at least as good as the existing one, and preferably better than, then there is no problem. Unfortunately, the word of the subject is not considered independent (and in quite a few cases I've seen, it isn't reliable anyway...). I an not accusing anyone here of lying - I'm explaining WHY we have these seemingly daft rules. For us, FACTS have to be verifiable. That means that they must be found in as reliable a source as possible. And as independent as possible, too. OK? If that's still not clear, it's my bad. Just ask. Peridon (talk) 08:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)