User talk:Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for continued sock puppetry. I decided not to use a standard template to notify you because you could have been a productive member of the community had you chosen not to continue creating sock puppet accounts.

As you are already banned by the community, I recommend that if you wish to return to editing legitimately under a single account to wait out for at least six months and then write an email to Ban Appeals Subcommittee in order to appeal against your community ban. - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mailer Diablo: and where are you getting the information that I am a said sock puppet; the person you accused me of being, I've read the message you tagged me in calling me a sock puppet of is in fact a vandal, all I've done is create several articles (three of which were deleted as you can see on my user page), and correct errors made by other users (X being a prime example) and moved pages such as The London Sessions, so I don't accept your uncivilness and accusations! I would like to apply to be unblocked and would like to take note of your actions and accusations as well. Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Eminem and Dina Rae.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Eminem and Dina Rae.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been falsely accused of sock puppetry

Decline reason:

Sorry; this is checkuser confirmed and the editing is similar as well. Use your original account to contest. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2014 (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.

The person that I've been accused of being is in fact a known sock puppeteer and a vandal and agressive and banned from Wikipedia, I have been accussed of being them when I don't know how I could be them, all I've done of Wikipedia is create several articles for the singer Dina Rae and some of the pages, mainly her discography has been deleted, not enough sources and info on them, no one's fault, just bad publicity I guess, and I have renamed several pages, and have reverted vandalizm to several pages like the release date to X, I haven't had any problems on here, most of the users have been helpful, such as JennKR who taught me the difference between a singer, songwriter and a singer-songwriter, I have also added various pictures to Dina Rae's articles, I haven't even ruined Wikipedia, I've helped out to improve Wikipedia something MariaJaydHicky never did so I don't think I should've been wrong acussed of being blocked, can someone help me please? Many thanks, Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru:; check user is wrong, this is my sole account and how are my edits like theirs when I've created articles; Dina Rae, And? (which was deleted), Can't Even C It (which was deleted), The Dina Rae Show (again deleted) and Dina Rae the contents page; I don't vandal unlike MariaJaydHicky who did; I want to know how to get my account unblocked as like I've said I am no way a sock; I don't know how check user could've made an extremely wrong error like that; so can I re apply for my block to be unblocked? If so and how? Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I've been falsely accused of sock puppetry)

Decline reason:

I've just used the checkuser tool and your account is Technically indistinguishable to Harmony-n-Beatz. In this context, it is probable that you are the same user, and consequently, I am declining this request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2014 (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.

The person that I've been accused of being is in fact a known sock puppeteer and a vandal and agressive and banned from Wikipedia, I have been accussed of being them when I don't know how I could be them, all I've done of Wikipedia is create several articles for the singer Dina Rae and some of the pages, mainly her discography has been deleted, not enough sources and info on them, no one's fault, just bad publicity I guess, and I have renamed several pages, and have reverted vandalizm to several pages like the release date to X, I haven't had any problems on here, most of the users have been helpful, such as JennKR who taught me the difference between a singer, songwriter and a singer-songwriter, I have also added various pictures to Dina Rae's articles, I haven't even ruined Wikipedia, I've helped out to improve Wikipedia something MariaJaydHicky never did, all she did was vandalize and called a user a "slanted eye cunt" and said "I would never fuck a Japanese guy both them and Chinks have tiny cocks and also he's a batty bwoy so unless I had a cock he'd like it but to be quiet frank; hopefully you'll see he's a cunt and always will be a cunt and should get a life or a virus." so I don't think I should've been wrong acussed of being blocked; when there are editors who talk like they've come from an Amenity tip and try and ruin Wikipedia for users like myself who are more interested in Wikipedia and making articles. Many thanks Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have proof of who I am; it's a photo of me with my copy of Dina Rae's hand signed copy of The Dina Rae Show and it show's me Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Not a sock puppet; don;t know how I am coming up as one

Decline reason:

I have checked the editing history of this account against the editing history of several of your earlier sockpuppets, and there is no doubt about it. The more sockpuppet accounts you make, the more material there is to check against, and the easier it is to identify further sockpuppets. Yes, you have stopped the childish name calling and infantile attacks you made from earlier accounts, but there are plenty of other aspects of your editing that give you away. Feel welcome to request a lifting of your ban, and in doing so be honest about all your sockpuppets, but the more sockpuppet accounts you create, and the more often you tell obvious and blatant lies, the less likely it is that such a request will eventually succeed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2014 (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.

When I am not a sock puppet; my IP keeps changing and gets auto blocks when I've not done anything so I shouldn't be blocked at all. Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]