User talk:Xboxmanwar

Leave a message.

Only if you need to, thanks.

December 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Dean (record producer). Magnolia677 (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Since you have been sockpuppeting with at least three other accounts to persistently introduce the same unsourced material into Wikipedia, I have increased your block to indefinite. Enough is enough. Black Kite (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: What bullshit is this? I was banned for three months and I take a quick look after a bit, and now I'm banned indefinitely for "sockpuppeting", I NEVER EVER made another account on Wikipedia, and either you or Magnolia677 didn't even do a CheckUser sockpuppet investigation against me and the other accounts I supposedly "created", and only referred to my editing style for "evidence".

Many editors follow me and my editing style, like JayPe, JustDoItFettyg and TheAmazingPeanuts, as well as EscoLaFlare, WilkesJacob, WilkesJacob2 (aka the accounts I was accused of "sockpuppeting" on), and other editors, because they support what I do, and I contributed significantly to the rap music community on Wikipedia (you can ask JayPe, JustDoItFettyg and TheAmazingPeanuts for proof), and a lot of us are against Magnolia677 way of "challenging" every single respective editor's edit, even taking it far to completely idiotic stuff like this with Veteran editor Ss112 and JustDoItFettyg over a useless citing of a song that's literally on its track listing, which Magnolia677 cannot understand the basic principle of.

Magnolia677, I saw the comment you made against me which you thought I was "sockpuppeting", and it's completely unethical and wrong, you cannot discourage other editors like that, even through they "failed", which I haven't for a fact. This is sad seeing an editor that's "excited" when they thought that I was "caught" and "brought down to my knees" like this.

I challenge and demand a CheckUser sockpuppet investigation against me since Black Kite and Magnolia677 think that I'm "sockpuppeting", so I can prove I'm not those accounts I'm accused of. Also to note, EscoLaFlare left me a message when I was unblocked about my edits, which I quickly responded and removed later. Why would I take the time to write a message to myself for me to reply to it and remove later? It sounds something ridiculous to do. Thank you. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Just to clarify, if Black Kite and Magnolia677 haven't figured out already, I am not R.pantoja.982864, who posted their "apology" in the same section about my "sockpuppeting" on Magnolia677's talk page, I have no idea who they are and is the first I've seen them on Wikipedia.

I agreed with you that EscoLaFlare isn't you, because why would you left yourself a message in the first place, I think the administrators has made a mistake on that one. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xboxmanwar: I also agree with @TheAmazingPeanuts: here. It's not right that they blocked you indefinitely without any hesitation, even with no true evidence or investigation towards this. I hope you come out of this not guilty. JayPe (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TheAmazingPeanuts on that one to. And Magnolia harasses me everyday for those kind of edits like on Rae Sremmurd's discography page and went on to report me for that. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still being ignored by @Magnolia677: and @Black Kite: who are still thinking to each other that they are right, disgraceful. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my response here. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: How about you stop trolling as you gave this stupid response to me and other people and give a proper response like a man, plus your troll picture doesn't help anything at all. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that wasn't helpful. Xboxmanwar, you need to post an unblock appeal so that another administrator can look at the issue. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Money Longer by Lil Uzi Vert Artwork.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Money Longer by Lil Uzi Vert Artwork.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) 18:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Money Longer by Lil Uzi Vert Artwork.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Money Longer by Lil Uzi Vert Artwork.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) 17:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Savage Mode EP by 21 Savage & Metro Boomin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Savage Mode EP by 21 Savage & Metro Boomin.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) 18:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Stoney alt cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Stoney alt cover.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) 03:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Birds in the Trap Sing McKnight.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) 03:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long overdue statement

@Vmavanti: I’ve come back from the dead just to reply to your current incident with Magnolia677 that they mentioned me in; That editor has had conflicts with multiple editors at the time, their past, and apparently still to this today, for the same issue. All of us likewise music editors were adding correct information, some of it sourced, some of it isn’t, however all the information added including my contributions were accurate, at least 99% of it, plus we were dedicated editors, not throwaways or IP vandals. Magnolia, however was the only editor that was very persistent and diligent towards us editors that stayed in our own lanes, which isn’t against any policy on Wikipedia, but they were definitely hounding us editors around. Especially for me, it felt like it was their ultimate goal to have me removed from Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form. I can recall looking at fellow editor Bloomdoom2’s case, which they had quite of a similar ending like mine. However, if I can completely remember, Magnolia went off-wiki to do their “research” about the editor, and IMO, was determined to make something plausible happen to that editor, which succeeded, crazy and absurd. Another crazy and absurd moment, because I guess a lot of editors old and new have a great similarity to my style (I guess I have a following???), is that once in a WHILE, I’ll get a notification of someone suspecting that it’s me back again on Wikipedia. Well, I have a life, I got things to do, and I don’t have the time to stay on Wikipedia all day or as much as I used to anymore, unlike Magnolia. (Retired maybe?) If I can also recall, the blocking admin was also Canadian, and apparently Magnolia is Canadian too, because I remember seeing a comment he made in response during that situation, implying that they were Canadian and wrote some article about so and so, which I felt was like a bias sort of thing. I remember it because it kind of angered me, but later fell in the back of my mind way later, plus it was Bloomdoom’s case, even through they thought that Bloomdoom (and other fellow [random] editors) were me. If I can find the threads (If I’m not lazy about it either), I’ll relink them here. All this is ironic to me in a way because Magnolia started the Kodak Black article I used to edit on, which I presume they made because of his legal issues and not his actual music, given that they didn’t commonly edit music articles until I and other editors came in, which to me I felt that he guarded that article with his life, as he kept on reverting every little [true] thing he saw added, as well as numerous other music related articles. Even whenever either I or another editor would put a sourced piece of info, Magnolia would engage in nit-picking all the details and such, and not have common sense in mind when he’s “reviewing”. Sorry for the long rant but this is only the short version in my perspective, but I support you Vmavanti of putting together obscure jazz music articles, wether they’re sourced or not, because whey would someone take up all their years and time to write false information? Especially on a topic that isn’t even realistically that sensitive, just music. Seems unrealistic to me.

By the way, the claim that the admin who blocked me added that I was socking with other accounts is completely 110% false. They didn’t even perform a checkuser, they just assumed that since the other “socked” editors had similar interests and editing styles as mine, they put two and two together and called it a day. I am NOT any of those editors. Disappointing. Xboxmanwar (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]