User talk:Rockallnight5

June 2018

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you recently removed content from A Boogie wit da Hoodie without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: International Artist (album) (June 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft has no references, and so cannot establish musical notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:International Artist (album) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:International Artist (album), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rockallnight5! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gotti Gotti has been accepted

Gotti Gotti, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dan arndt (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeBron

I wanted to give you a little more clarifiction then what I put in my edit summary on the revert for his position. In the infobox, we give the players listed roster position and this is the case in all sports at all levels in all leagues. If you go to the Lakers roster on their website you will see they are listing LeBron as a Forward and guard. Please leave the infobox as this.--Rockchalk7 17 04:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave his position alone. Your edits are in good faith but are not needed.--Rockchalk7 17 23:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Camila Cabello. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Miaow 14:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nazr Mohammed, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Oprah Sideverson

Hello, Rockallnight5. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Oprah Sideverson, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Oprah Sideverson to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

Xevus11 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LNU

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page LNU. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
- Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Oprah Sideverson

Hello, Rockallnight5. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Oprah Sideverson, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Oprah Sideverson to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks,

Xevus11 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oprah Sideverson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oprah Sideverson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oprah Sideverson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Xevus11 (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72h for sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue, the next block can very well be for an infinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mike Korzemba

The article Mike Korzemba has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One source is not enough. WP:BEFORE shows nothing to make a claim of GNG, as most results are linked to social media, management or merchandise sales.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Jimmy Butler (basketball) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Gucci Mane. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gucci Mane. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Transportin'. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I see that you had second thoughts about this [1]: thank you for undoing. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at If You're Reading This It's Too Late, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked you for disruptive editing and editing while logged out. Read WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2018 (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).

Rockallnight5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I'm Rockallnight5. I'm here to apologize for the actions that I've committed prior to getting blocked on Wikipedia. I did not realize that my edits were disruptive, and I was accidentally logged out several times, leading to the sock puppetry. Keep in mind that this is only music-related; I edit articles on other subjects as well. These were all mistakes that I've made and should not have been done in the first place. I promise these actions will never be done again on this site. Thank you, and I'll see you later.

Decline reason:

"I did not realize that my edits were disruptive". Oh, come on now. There are more than enough warnings on this page. You knew very well your edits were disruptive. It looks like nobody's buying your "accidentally logged out" claims either. Yamla (talk) 13:10, 17 December 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.

There are too many logged-out edits for it to be a "mistake". We've been in this same position before, and you've made similar promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do about it then? I have used these accounts before editing with this one; remember, I only started editing under Rockallnight5 in June. Plus, this is the first time I ever requested to be unblocked.--Rockallnight5 (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you revert my and Dan56 edits for [2] [3]? Those recording dates are not supported by sources and you are restoring unsourced content. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were intact long before you decided to go on a rampage and take them out of the albums. Plus, there were already sources available anyway, so I don't understand why it's wrong to remove them.--Rockallnight5 (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any sources in these articles that support these claimed recording dates, so they don't need to be in those articles if they supported by a source. And you didn't explain why you reverted another editor reverts to restore the unsourced recording dates that have been reverted for the same reason. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They don't even exist anymore and I won't revert back anyway, so why and how should I explain? It doesn't even matter anymore.--Rockallnight5 (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2018 (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).

Rockallnight5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I'm Rockallnight5. I'm here to apologize for the actions that I've committed prior to getting blocked on Wikipedia. I tried to make good faith edits towards the editors (in fact, a lot of my edits were in good faith), and the sock puppetry was a huge mistake that I should have never done. I understand now that when content is unsourced, it is removable unless it is provided by a reliable source. I will make sure these actions, including edit warring, will never be done again on this site with great discipline. With that being said, I request to be unblocked from Wikipedia with great honesty, ASAP. Thank you for your patience.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Despite the seeming heartfeltness of this unblock request, a WP:check user has determined that wp:sockpuppetry has been on-going. This also will need addressing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:37, 18 December 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.

Despite your repeated comments above about socking, you have evaded your block. For that reason, I have changed your block to a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What does that mean? What is this "CU block"? I'm trying to get unblocked by requesting here.Rockallnight5 (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rockallnight5, A CU block is a block that can only be undone by a checkuser, a special admin with technical access to information from system logs. Normal admins cannot lift this block. SQL ^{Query me!} 18:48, 18 December 2018 (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).

Rockallnight5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I'm Rockallnight5. I have cooled down now and I'm back here to apologize for the actions that I've committed prior to getting blocked on Wikipedia. I tried to make good faith edits towards the editors (in fact, a lot of my edits were in good faith), and the sock puppetry was a huge mistake that I should have never done and will never do. I have forgotten the problems that I had with other editors in the past, and I understand now that when content is unsourced, it is removable unless it is provided by a reliable source. I will make sure these actions, including edit warring, will never be done again on this site with great discipline. With that being said, I request to be unblocked from Wikipedia with great honesty, ASAP. Thank you for your patience, and I will see you later.

Decline reason:

We're glad you cooled down. We also note that you were editing without logging in at the same time you were considering, and then reconsidering, requesting unblock. So you need to be forthcoming regarding your non-logged-in edits while blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:56, 15 January 2019 (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.

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).

Rockallnight5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I'm Rockallnight5. I'm back on my talk page and I'm here to apologize for the actions that I've committed prior to getting blocked on Wikipedia. I tried to make good faith edits towards the editors (in fact, a lot of my edits were in good faith), and when I use my account, sometimes I close my browser in the end, but when I open, I'm not logged in, and sometimes I forget to do so, thus creating the sock puppetry problem. Anyways, with that said, I agree to stop adding unsourced content. I will never edit while logged out ever again, assuming I'm unblocked. I will also never unreasonably start edit wars. I will make sure these actions will never be done again on this site with great discipline. With that being said, I request to be unblocked from Wikipedia with great honesty, ASAP. Thank you for your patience, and I will see you later.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This unblock request is stale and has not proven sufficient to convince any admin to review. Additionally, the information below shows you've continued to act in bad faith, continuing to evade your block. This leaves you with WP:UTRS but given your continued block evasion, there's no reasonable chance of an unblock there either, not at this time. Yamla (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2019 (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.

unblock discussion

If you are editing from home and can secure your desk top, you might want to click the box that allows you to stay logged in. I find it easier to do it that way.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to know. I'll keep that in mind when I start editing again. Rockallnight5 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your last block request was declined on January 15, 2019. Since that time, you have evaded your block with IPs over 50 times. I have therefore revoked your talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Rockallnight5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23980 was submitted on Feb 18, 2019 02:11:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:First Take.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:First Take.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]