User talk:Fanaticaddict

Revision as of 22:45, 5 June 2024 of Bad Boys: Ride or Die

Hi,

=> https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bad_Boys%3A_Ride_or_Die&diff=1227471213&oldid=1227443803

There have already been complaints about content removal by you - could you please back up your reason for deletion of content by citing the corresponding Wikipedia policy or guideline?

=> Only include the release date of the country that made the movie. Unless it is a world premiere.

Whilst fully cognisant how unreasonable it would be to list any film's release information for all the countries in the world in the article's WP:Lead, I'm pretty sure though that people in countries other than the States would want to know about that film's release in their country - and those countries presumably deserve as much attention. In that particular case I listed release information for countries with sizeable population (and thus likely to contribute significantly to the film's box office revenue) and where the film in question was released BEFORE the North American domestic release. And even culturally, why should Britain, Germany, Australia and other countries be treated as second-echelon and less important?

For one other thing, your edit resulted in the reference for the film's information on The Numbers (website) which I added in my previous edit becoming orphaned (was restored by Wikipedia bot). At the very least you could have moved the deleted content to "Release" section of the article (which I've done myself earlier today)...

Szagory (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple rule. Even if it may have been released in other countries beforehand, we do not include those dates because they were not made by the country that made it. If only England made the film, then we'll only use the date it comes out in England ONLY. If only France made the film, we use the French date ONLY. And if only America made the project, then we shall use the American date ONLY. It is not an American thing, and it never was. It's a thing of having too much unnecessary information. Fanaticaddict (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Aksh 539 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet. I would like to make it clear that I am not a sockpuppet at all. I have never heard of Aksh 539 in my life. Looking at what the user has edited, I have never been to these pages and have never edited them, period. The original account was never made by me. I don't even know anything about this other person's account. I feel like this might have been a mistake. However, I think I know why the person who banned me might consider this a sock puppet account. We might have the same IP address. If that is the case, I would like to clarify that this account and Aksh 539 are not the same person. I would also like to clarify that I am not Spartan231297, as I saw on the person who blocked me's talk page that they were thinking this. I'm not even in the same country as Spartan. I must point out that just because we visit and edit the same articles does not mean we are the same person.

Decline reason:

I don't find this convincing. For example, I see no reference to Spartan231297 until you yourself made the reference. I see no way for you to know what country Spartan231297 is in. What I do see is an almost complete overlap in edits between these two accounts. I think you need to address each and every one of these points, specifically. Yamla (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have evidence that Aksh 539, Spartan231297, and myself (Fanaticaddict) are in fact, not the same person. For the accusation that I am Aksh 539, I have looked at the article intersection, which as you can see, is nonexistent. As for the reason that I brought up, Spartan231297, it was because the blocker was brought up to my account because the person who told them about me thought I was the same person as Spartan. However, if you look here, the person that blocked me has stated that Spartan and I are in different countries, so it would be impossible for us to be the same person. Do you think this would be enough evidence for you to unblock me? Or do you need more evidence?

Decline reason:

After waiting some time for this appeal to be reviewed, you attempted to log in to this old blocked account. Given the edits made by that account, I believe that this Fanaticaddict account is, indeed, a sock. Your appeal is declined. Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:03, 28 August 2024 (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.

You have made no fewer than seven edits to your unblock request since you posted it. If it is not yet ready for review, take it down. Otherwise, stop editing it. --Yamla (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done editing the unblock request. Fanaticaddict (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]