User talk:Dhriege

May 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Westlife discography has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Westlife discography was changed by Dhriege (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.881091 on 2018-05-12T02:47:07+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Katy Perry discography. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Katy Perry discography was changed by Dhriege (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863468 on 2018-05-12T04:40:05+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor

Hi. Please don't mark edits such as this as minor. Removing 200 bytes of content is not really minor, and that may be considered contentious (as you removed a citation that references a single that others may not know is really a single otherwise). Thanks. Ss112 04:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Katy Perry discography, you may be blocked from editing. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

I clearly do not understand why I was blocked. I just edited some parts of Katy Perry discography and I was blocked. Some Wikipedia users are really unfair. They blocked me and labeled me as disruptive editor without knowing and checking my contributions. This is how you manipulate power? This is so unfair. I came here to improve some articles but I eas blocked because of some ppwerful people here who are lazy to check and read everything. I can clearly explain myself if it's about the recent edits I made. I can send an email to any of the admins if it's necessary to explain myself. About the Katy Perry discography, I edited so many things and removed unintentional errors in the article. I know and it is my fault that some of the references are poor that's why I removed them in accordance with what they are saying. But I do not get it why they want every thing to be reverted, I am really clueless. Some things are really important and need to be improved especially the technicalities in the article. Honestly speaking, I improved a lot of things in that article. If you want to, I can stat every detail why I want my edits to be restored. Disruptive editing is not my title, and that people who do not read and lazy to check everything are the ones who deserve a block and that title. Please reach out. Don't be a deaf.

Decline reason:

You were blocked under another username, as noted below, and as such your edits under this name will not be allowed to stand due to that block evasion. You need to return to your original account and request to be unblocked there. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 13 May 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.

Your account was blocked as a painfully obvious sock puppet of User:ShaneFilaner. Don't think you can just sneak back in blatant inflations and questionable-at-best links for many of those changes (not counting IFPI, CBS News, or Pure Charts as those sources are fine) before your original account got indefinitely blocked for dubious—and at times deceptive—content. Block evasion isn't cool. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've received your email; as I state above, as you were blocked as a sockpuppet, you will need to return to your original name and request to be unblocked from that name- and as part of your unblock request you will be asked to list any and all other accounts you have used. You won't be unblocked under this name- at least until you are under your original name(assuming you want to abandon the other name). 331dot (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]