User talk:AdversusImportunus

Moving Fireal to Inkakai

Your recent editing history at Fireal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sawol (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TheInkakaiRises, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited was Inkakai, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Best practices for editors with close associations
Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John Cline (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --John Cline (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Fireal has been reverted.
Your edit here to Fireal was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/firealofficial) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

All of the links and information I provided was correct and from the band's official pages. What did I do wrong exactly? TheInkakaiRises (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You disruptively edited to protect your contributions, and only participated minimally in discussion. As noted, Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, not what subjects say about themselves. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2021 (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.

Wikipedia does not care what the band says about itself, a Wikipedia article summarises what independent sources say about the subject. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus we do not link to youtube etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ge: EatMusic and Metal World are both individual sources, don't they count? why is it repeatedly prevented to add the links of Fireal and Inkakai interviews because they provide information crucial about this page as well? Regarding the name change from Fireal to Inkakai: if the band says they have changed their name to Inkakai, what else "independent" source can be more reliable about their name change? Should they give an interview to some site about their name change and then it would be more reliable? TheInkakaiRises (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]

Interviews don't count as independent. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The announcing of Flamer (ex-Bleak) https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/former-bleak-frontman-launches-flamer/ and Flamer changing name to Fireal in the globally known site Blabbermouth: https://search.blabbermouth.net/news/flamer-changes-name-to-fireal/ and releasing single "Breathe" co-written by Max Martin: https://blabbermouth.herokuapp.com/news/fireal-new-single-available-for-streaming/

Do these count as reliable independent sources?

TheInkakaiRises (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every comment needs to be an unblock request; additional comment should be standard, unformatted comments. What does "ge:" mean? ?

Wikipedia typically uses the most common name for a topic, see WP:COMMONNAME. If no sources use the new name, the article should not be titled under the new name yet. The point here is that you cannot disruptively edit to protect your contributions, you must obtain a consensus for them. 331dot (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

You can clearly see from the links I posted that Flamer changed their name to Fireal and that Fireal released "Breathe" that was co-written by Max Martin. See the link HERE. The site that posted this news is Blabbermouth. These links prove the notability of Fireal and the fact that the page should not be deleted - however I cannot enter these links on the deletion page as I'm prevented from editing. I ask once again: are these links considered reliable sources? They look reliable to me. So, editing these links to the Fireal page and the deletion page should be allowed, correct? If I cannot enter these links, then someone else must do that so that the information gets passed along. This deletion is completely unfounded. TheInkakaiRises The announcing of Flamer (ex-Bleak) HERE and Flamer changing name to Fireal HERE. You can see Fireal's song "Breathe" listed in Max_Martin_production_discography TheInkakaiRises TheInkakaiRises (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you are now also under investigation for sockpuppetry, I think we'd all be better off if the block remains in place pending the outcome of that. — Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2021 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheInkakaiRises, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet investigation has been closed without action.[1] --John Cline (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - The sockpuppet investigation was reopened, based on new information, and the following sanctions have been actioned: Sock/meat puppets were warned, the AfD for Fireal has been semi-protected, and the sock/meat puppet !votes at the AfD have been stricken. The SPI posted its second close, here linked.[2] --John Cline (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Cline Tamzin Lavalizard101 There is and was no sockpuppetry going on, the whole Fireal deletion page and this page was shared to several Fireal groups and all the fans in Facebook, these are clearly the fans trying to do something to prevent the deletion. Why are you trying to prevent legit information from being posted on the deletion page? I've shared all these links to the groups, with the information that I was blocked so therefore prevented from participating in the discussion myself. Of course others will try to prevent it because it is completely unfounded. And these links clearly prove that the site should NOT be deleted: Max_Martin_production_discography, Blabbermouth and their news about Fireal also in the movie Priest of Evil. Why isn't that information allowed on the deletion page? Now the people making the decision about the deletion will not be aware of any of the _facts_ that speak against deletion. The first No Delete comment with the wikilinks was speaking 100% truth here.

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).

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

Request reason:

Old message: As the sockpuppet investigation has closed with no action, it should no longer affect the blocking decision (see above). My cut and paste edits will not repeat, however the above references to Blabbermouth articles and Max_Martin_production_discography should be added as they are completely acceptable. Regarding the name change, it should be noted that Fireal has re-released their song "The Smoke" as an identical version under the name Inkakai, this can be found in all the streaming services. And I have read the article. My only concern here is entering the correct information regarding Fireal and Inkakai because in its current state the information here in Wikipedia doesn't represent existing current facts. TheInkakaiRises (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2021 (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.

Friendly advice

I honestly believe you should read the guide to appealing blocks. It's pretty clear, based on the unblock requests you've posted so far that you haven't read it yet. I believe you will find it helpful. --John Cline (talk) 06:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

Because of your block evasion with Special:contributions/85.76.115.184, I have revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]