User talk:XGabriel86X

Welcome back.. again

Keep coming back and evading your original ban and I'll keep letting 'em know at ANI, young fella. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even know what Im banned for? For adding sources and information that my friend wanted me to put and they said it was some "sockpuppet" crap. This is ridiculous I shouldn't even be banned at all.

Also I wanna talk to that GiantSnowman guy what the hell is his problem?

I don't actually give a damn as to what all the specifics were for your block, but from what I remember you/your "friend" made some abusive edits, got blocked for that, after which your Gabriel accounts started popping up and editing the same articles in exactly the same style. That makes it safe enough to treat you both as the same person. As for the sales figure of 4 million that you keep trying to add to The Years of Decay, every single source you've provided so far has not been reliable (see WP:RS). In case you hadn't noticed, the content from the newburycomics.com link has been lifted from a previous edition of a Wikipedia article about the band (see WP:CWW), and the one from aeglive.com was poorly presented amidst a muddle of unformatted text. If you really, genuinely wish to have the figure added to the article, I'd suggest finding something concrete from Billboard or RIAA that solidly supports your claim. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used another source instead this time. And yeah that was me I used Phantomlord95 when I went over his house to dick with St.Anger and Lars Ulrichs stuff. It was funny! But when I was done I fixed it back to what it was. why do you guys care so much? As long as I put it back it shouldn't have mattered at all. And you took that source off too? What's wrong with that one plus I literally got 2 or 3 more saying the exact same thing.

The same question about caring can be deflected back at you: why do you care so much about sales figures? Or rather, if you did care so much, you'd actually do some research to ensure that the sources were reliable, rather than plucking something out of the deepest depths of the 'Net. You have more, you say? Well, post the links here and let's see how they look. Either that, or write to RIAA and ask them to publish the figures if it matters so much, or find some old Billboard magazines from the 1990s and cite the page. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-care. Necroshine95 cares more. Ok and also was wrong with that link I used before and what's with the "you"? (http://m3talh3adz.wall.fm/forum/topic/30) (http://dev2.aeglive.com/artists/view/1401/Overkill) and (http://artists.ebay.com/Overkill) plus the majority of all Thrash fans know this as a fact lol

Sigh.. OK, now explain how those are reliable sources. Lemme run through them to give you an idea of how you're going wrong with this: firstly, this is some obscure fan forum (see WP:SPS), and the content has been lifted from a Wikipedia page. Secondly, this is a company which promotes concerts, nothing more. Finally, this is from eBay for crying out loud, and the link is not even viewable outside of the U.S. As for "the majority of all Thrash fans know this as a fact", how are the rest of Wikipedia's readers supposed to know such a "fact"? I'll say it again: contact RIAA or Billboard and ask them to publish the figures. Either that or find another Blabbermouth link which has it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, you might want to take some time out to read this page all the way through. It should hopefully give you a better idea of how Wikipedia goes about things. Just a friendly suggestion, from a fellow Overkill fan (well, their first five albums anyway..) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Also do album reviews count? If so than here (http://johnnyringoreviews.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/march-thrash-madness-day-one/) Also only their first 5?

Album reviews only count if they're reliably published, such as the ones found on AllMusic or staff reviews from Sputnikmusic and whatnot. Therefore this comes under WP:SPS, so it can't be considered reliable since that reviewer/blog is not on Wikipedia's list of acceptable review sites. (And yeah, pretty much just their first five get regular spins for me. Anything after Horrorscope, whilst still good, not so much.) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll ask Necroshine95 when he gets back from school for more. Also I actually like up to From the Underground and Below after that I don't listen much

Oh and why doesn't the one that promotes concerts count? I'm lost with that one.

The AEG source cannot be considered reliable because: 1. They don't state their own sources for that figure (as in, there's no mention of where they got it from), and 2. The line which reads "Brilliantly prolific at a breakneck pace, Overkill unleashed the 4 million selling The Years of Decay" can also be found here and here, neither of which are any more reliable than the other. If three sites present the exact same quote, without any attribution to the original author, then it just cannot be presented as fact on Wikipedia—unless, one were to pull up the figure from a verifiable RIAA or Billboard source. That is the only way you're going to get that sales figure to stay on the article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they all stated the same thing. They must have gotten it from somewhere. But where? That's the real question

Sure, that's the question, but it should not be the responsibility of the reader to determine whether something is true or not; the onus is always on the editor who adds content (see WP:PROVEIT), especially when it comes to something as definitive as record sales figures. Observe how Blabbermouth does it for Immortalis:

OVERKILL's new album, "Immortalis", has sold 2,800 copies in the United States in its first week of release, according to Nielsen SoundScan.

The difference between that, and all the other sources you've provided thus far, is the way in which Blabbermouth clearly states the source of their information—namely, Nielsen SoundScan—therefore making it a perfectly good addition to the article. Can you see how it works now? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying but The Years of Decay is from 1989. The SoundScan era in music started in 1991, that makes it more difficult to find so in this case it'd be hard to find it through blabbermouth.

Well then you're out of luck. It happens to all of us on Wikipedia, so don't worry about it too much. I've had plenty of occasions over the years where I've known something to be true (especially with music genres, which is a whole other debate altogether), but simply could not find any reliable and readily available sources to prove it. So what did I do? I let it go and spent my usual evening at the gym, heh. Besides, isn't it good enough for now that The Years of Decay has verifiable sources for Billboard chart positions? At least readers will know about it being Overkill's fourth highest-charting album and stuff like that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao. It's almost ironic actually lol. Everybody knows it to be a true statement, but there's no "official" proof of it. I got other information I can add to stuff anyways

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).

XGabriel86X (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm apperantly considered to be a "sockpuppet" of Necroshine95 (who is actually a friend of mine) he wanted me to put some information which included links to prove its true and I was banned.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppet or meatpuppet; either way you are not needed here. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:47, 10 January 2013 (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.

And you have previously admitted that both the Necroshine95 and Phantomlord95 accounts were made by you and not your friend, at User talk:Necroshine95, where you said "Oh ok. My friend didnt make the account, I did." And as several people have explained on your various talk pages, treating us like we're stupid really will not get you anywhere - there are far too many experienced and wise heads around here to be fooled by some kid who thinks he's being clever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah cause he just wanted to get unblocked probably. What I can't understand is why you dorks are buggin out about me adding stuff to Wikipedia that he asked me to add, I'm only doin a favor for a friend (and for all the readers in a way). If your this uptight about banning people and about puppets than so be it my business is done here. But you need to go home and reevaluate your lives if this is how serious you actually take this. Like I said before on my other 1986 account: Are you gonna ban everybody that edits Overkills page cause you think it's him?

Did you not read the bit above where I suggested you stop treating us like we're stupid? I made you the Standard Offer on your original account, and you're lucky it has not been rescinded yet - but it will be if I see one more bit of your nonsense. At this moment, the Standard Offer really is the only realistic way you are going to stand a chance of being unblocked - though it is now seriously damaged by your continued socking and your calling people "dorks". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rofl You are stupid if youre getting this upset over me adding information as a favor. Go home and think your life over. I'm gonna go do something else. Later Chumps\,,/

I have now prevented you from editing on this page. Any further request must be made on your original account. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]