User talk:Soccermeko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Soccermeko! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature_icon.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Welcome To My Talk Page

  • Questions = if you have a question, title your comment "question"
  • Complaints = please name your title complaints
  • Pictures = if you have a problem about pictures, title the subject the name of the picture
  • Unsigned Signatures = unsigned signature will be deleted
  • Deleting my things = if you deleted my thing, then you will be report no matter who you are


Contents

[edit] Userpage

I saw you blanked your userpage. Do you want to have it deleted? In that case, you can stick {{db-g7}} to it and someone will deleted it. Punkmorten 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Article Recreation

Unlike the other mixtapes, Speak My Mind (album) cites some sources - although it's not that much different when it was deleted here. It might get deleted again. Anyway, the reason mixtapes generally aren't notable is because they're just track lists and not much can be said about them. You can go to deletion review if you want it restored. I hope all of this doesn't discourage you from editing or anything. Spellcast (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] InDepenDance Day

Why does this page need to be protected? Please see WP:Protect for reasons why we protect pages. Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

When you recreate a page, you have to address the concerns for it being deleted. The review site doesn't actually have a review. Also, 2 of the 3 singles aren't from the tape. You have to cite sources to show it's received significant coverage in reliable sources. See the Dedication 2 mixtape for example, that has several reviews and info. If you want to recreate it, you have to take it to deletion review. Continually recreating it like that will lead to a block. Spellcast (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Nicole Wray

"I'm Lookin'", "Borrowed Time", and "Dear Father" are way more of contemporary R&B, and Nicole's overall music is far from being as soulful and funky as Curtis Mayfield's or Marvin Gaye's, so please stop retrieving inaccurate genres. Also, genres should not be capitalised. Thank you. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Message

I've replied to your message on Talk:InDepenDance Day above. Also, see WP:NPA - threats like these aren't acceptable, thanks. Spellcast (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] InDepenDance Day

Please recreate so i can fix. Soccermeko (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I will restore it to your user space. Please improve it there and do NOT move it to mainspace until an administrator has approved it. It will be at: User:Soccermeko/InDepenDance Day. Please familiarize yourself with the editor concerns as described at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover. JERRY talk contribs 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have editted it. please tell others Soccermeko (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at it, and marked several maintenance concerns. Some of the marks are invisible comments; (can only be viewed in edit mode). You may want to address these concerns. JERRY talk contribs 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked unblock declines

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Alright this has gone far enough. The sockpuppet with me is JosephP89. But I still would like to request being unblock. I promise not to create another sockpuppet again. But all the other users had nothing to do with it. They just tried to be a end to you all putting false information about Nicole Wray. But if you unblock, I will try to make everything write and back to normal."

Decline reason: "I agree, it has gone far enough. You have attempted to edit via numerous anonymous IP addresses and numerous alternate accounts since being blocked. I see no evidence that you have been reformed recently. If you stay away from editing at ALL for some time, you may have a case that you are reformed. However, I see no evidence of that yet, given the recency of these sockpuppet problems. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I don't care. No one care about Wikipedia. You try to contribute but they reply by adding false information and lies. And if the block isn't undone then it really would be the crappess site ever made. Because you got stupid users who think they know everything. Soccermeko (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "This doesn't appear to be a request for unblocking, just some insults. Please, only use the unblock template if you are explaining a clear, valid reason to be unblocked. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "You try to contribute but they reply by adding false information and lies. Because you got stupid users who think they know everything. However I am still requesting a unblock because I sick and tired of everyone vandalizing and spreading false information about Nicole Wray including User: Kww, User: Kurt Shaped Box, and Hello Control. Soccermeko (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "Attacking other users, and refusing to admit to your own rampant violation of the rules, especially abusive use of multiple accounts and continuing to edit anonymously via IP address while under a block does not show a good-faith desire on your part to be a positive contributor. I suggest you take an extended break and avoid editing Wikipedia at all for some time at length. If you do so, your request to return to editing will be taken much more seriously. Your continuous and non-stop attempts to avoid your initial block are why you are not allowed to edit. Abide by the block, take some time off, and THEN apply for an unblock. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Unblock

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I'm trying to add the right information to the Nicole Wray page.Soccermeko (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "This does not address the reason for your block, which is that you are a confirmed abusive sockpuppeteer, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soccermeko. — Yamla (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

Do not want following people to jugde this block. Do to mistreatment. They do not know how to be reasonable and vandalize me or every page that I have edited.
  • FisherQueen
  • Hello Control
  • Jayron32
  • Kurt Shaped Box
  • Kww
  • Mdmmurresz
  • Spellcast

Soccermeko (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks will not be tolerated here. See WP:NPA. Any more and your page will be protected indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all Yamla, I attacked no one, they attacked me. That is one thing you to get straight. And I had address everything about the case, so you need to stop bringing it up. Second of all, the list of people who attacked me are also the same people who vandalize pages and put the blame on other members. You think you know but just because it's there doesn't mean it's true. Listen and listen good, Deenaharp, leofan, and whoever else are not sockpuppets of me and what is worst is we did not get a chance to prove because they block everyone who tries. On top of that, anyone who editted the Nicole Wray or Yolanda Johnson page would be automatically block anyway, and be blamed as a sockpuppet of Soccermeko. I am demanding that you reconsider your post. Soccermeko (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you stop looking, and listen, you would realize the truth and see that the following has been done.
  • Blocking of innocent users
  • Vandalism on pages
  • Any user (other the users listed up top) who edits the Nicole Wray on Yolanda page, would be blocked
  • Blaming Soccermeko for untrue statements
  • Closing the case before, I(Soccermeko) had a say so in it
  • Not listening to any but themselves
  • Reverting edits that have been source or cited

All of this is true and no of it is wrong. Now some of those users will come and try to take this information down because they know that I am correct, if not they will say something that sounds right but isn't and redirect you to the Wikipedian rules when it doesn't even say that. If you haven't realize yet, all those members have been involve in every deletion process page that I have made. Soccermeko (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You have accused me of vandalism. That is a serious accusation, so I demand the opportunity to defend myself. Post one diff of my vandalism of anything, bearing in mind that restoring declined unblocks is not vandalism. That you are accused of misdeeds is not a license to accuse me falsely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking

Please refrain from any further blanking of unblock declines. --Yamla (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)