User talk:DC124

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DC124 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying. When I say main writer, I mean the person who contributed most to the song. Of course there are co writers who add words etc. If new posts or names were posted at the bottom to maintain flow, that would take away the writers credibility of how much they contributed, compared to those who didn’t write the song at all, as well as didn’t even know the song existed. Example: Ed Sheeran admitting he didn’t know a Grammy nominated song existed, where his name is placed as #1. I’m not not saying his name should necessarily be removed, but the actual writers name who contributed 90% or more should definitely be listed DC124 (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying. When I say main writer, I mean the person who contributed most to the song. Of course there are co writers who add words etc. If new posts or names were posted at the bottom to maintain flow, that would take away the writers credibility of how much they contributed, compared to those who didn’t write the song at all, as well as didn’t even know the song existed. Example: Ed Sheeran admitting he didn’t know a Grammy nominated song existed, where his name is placed as #1. I’m not not saying his name should necessarily be removed, but the actual writers name who contributed 90% or more should definitely be listed [[User:DC124|DC124]] ([[User talk:DC124#top|talk]]) 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying. When I say main writer, I mean the person who contributed most to the song. Of course there are co writers who add words etc. If new posts or names were posted at the bottom to maintain flow, that would take away the writers credibility of how much they contributed, compared to those who didn’t write the song at all, as well as didn’t even know the song existed. Example: Ed Sheeran admitting he didn’t know a Grammy nominated song existed, where his name is placed as #1. I’m not not saying his name should necessarily be removed, but the actual writers name who contributed 90% or more should definitely be listed [[User:DC124|DC124]] ([[User talk:DC124#top|talk]]) 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, I’m not quite understanding what you’re saying. When I say main writer, I mean the person who contributed most to the song. Of course there are co writers who add words etc. If new posts or names were posted at the bottom to maintain flow, that would take away the writers credibility of how much they contributed, compared to those who didn’t write the song at all, as well as didn’t even know the song existed. Example: Ed Sheeran admitting he didn’t know a Grammy nominated song existed, where his name is placed as #1. I’m not not saying his name should necessarily be removed, but the actual writers name who contributed 90% or more should definitely be listed [[User:DC124|DC124]] ([[User talk:DC124#top|talk]]) 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

February 2017

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Cold Water (song), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DC124, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DC124! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources, please provide them. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 123.136.111.19 (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Where Are Ü Now— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Where Are Ü Now. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Acebulf (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. 113.210.66.196 (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. 183.171.113.33 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Where Are Ü Now. Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2019 (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).

DC124 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fraudulent Songwriters on hlist

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 23:44, 8 April 2019 (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).

DC124 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have made only truthful and honorable contributions. The people on the hlist have been sued for stealing the songs. They do not own them. The main writer, who has authorization of this account is asking you respect his legal and moral rights and stop removing his name out of ignorance. Do your google searches and/or ask the labelDC124 (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As before, this does not address the reason for the block, abuse of multiple accounts. You also seem to be suggesting that this account is shared, which is not permitted. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2019 (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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

DC124 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There has been no abuse of multiple accounts. Now you’re just making stuff up, (including the suggestion) of multiple users. Which is not the case. My edits are only accurate to where the correct names belong on the page lists. Adding the correct name, or the main writers name is neither vandilism or a violation of policy. Fraud is, however. By U.S. law. Wikipedia DC124 (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There has been no abuse of multiple accounts. Now you’re just making stuff up, (including the suggestion) of multiple users. Which is not the case. My edits are only accurate to where the correct names belong on the page lists. Adding the correct name, or the main writers name is neither vandilism or a violation of policy. Fraud is, however. By U.S. law. Wikipedia [[User:DC124|DC124]] ([[User talk:DC124#top|talk]]) 01:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There has been no abuse of multiple accounts. Now you’re just making stuff up, (including the suggestion) of multiple users. Which is not the case. My edits are only accurate to where the correct names belong on the page lists. Adding the correct name, or the main writers name is neither vandilism or a violation of policy. Fraud is, however. By U.S. law. Wikipedia [[User:DC124|DC124]] ([[User talk:DC124#top|talk]]) 01:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There has been no abuse of multiple accounts. Now you’re just making stuff up, (including the suggestion) of multiple users. Which is not the case. My edits are only accurate to where the correct names belong on the page lists. Adding the correct name, or the main writers name is neither vandilism or a violation of policy. Fraud is, however. By U.S. law. Wikipedia [[User:DC124|DC124]] ([[User talk:DC124#top|talk]]) 01:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You mentioned "the main writer", which suggests that there are secondary writers on this account. Standard practice on Wikipedia is to place new posts at the bottom for proper flow. 331dot (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]