User talk:DeadSend4

Blanking

Now that the block has expired, I have gone ahead and blanked the page. Keep in mind this does not change the past, and I hope that in the future we don't have any problems that could lead to you becoming banned by the community or, worse, ArbCom. If you wish to have any of the prior discussions archived, feel free to ask me for assistance. In the meantime, I ask that everyone who's been visiting here please relax, the block is over, let's carry on in a friendly manner. =) CycloneGU (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Cookie

CycloneGU has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

I thought this might cheer you up.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Sockpuppet Case - A Reminder

The sockpuppetry case is located here. Take note of my comments there and abide by them, and keep a clear head; don't go in telling people to get lost or shut up or anything, it will only lead others to believe you are acting in bad faith and don't want to be a positive contribution. Remember, positive attitude gets positive results. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, just noticed the blanking of the page, I appreciate your help and yes I will be civil as I have been to many. I'm not sure if I feel comfortable even touching Miss Kidman's article, I feel any edit will be reverted and thus me causing more problems. I'm just going to leave that alone since, at the moment, the consensus there is against me and have had every suggestion of mine ignored. Again, thanks for the help and your time. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, I think it might be wise to keep your hands off that one for a brief while and let everyone there relax for a little while. Once you've built up a good reputation, maybe you can make small edits and slowly improve the article. But for future reference, whether on Nicole Kidman or on another article, if someone deletes your additions, please don't take offense. Find out why they deleted it in a civil discussion. If you still feel the reversion is wrong, discuss it on the article talk page. Even for the Kidman article, there is no harm with you going to the talk page and proposing the changes. Just be civil about it. It may be easier to get an agreement than you may think! If you have any questions, please pop your head in on my talk page as well; I'll try to help as much as I can. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. :) If I have any questions I will be sure to ask. Is there anyway I can have both accounts combined to just one, under a single name? Just curious. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not believe this can be done. While it might be possible to convert your contributions on talk pages under the other account to change your name on the posts, it is impossible to attribute those edits with a different username, so I wouldn't nother going about doing it on talk pages, either. CycloneGU (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see, I guess that will be figured out once the other account is unblocked. Thanks again and I will visit your talk page if I have any issues or concers. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If the other account also belongs to you, it will never be unblocked. All editors are expected to contribute using only one account. Administrators are often exceptions when they have bots, which then auto-edit under their own name; the script does not run on the admin. account, and the admin. is not allowed to edit on the bot account (see ExampleBot, SineBot, and AlphaBot for examples). I believe even any talk page posts to the bot page are addressed by the bot owner under his own account. CycloneGU (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. I figured I can just disable this one and go to just using the other account. But it's fine. DeadSend4 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you can use more than one account, so long as none of them are blocked, and you don't play games with them such as voting or commenting twice or using them to evade the 3 revert rule. You don't have to notify or ask anyone to create another account if you are an editor in good standing. If one of your accounts gets blocked, for whatever reason, clear that up before you use another. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that was an option, I remember reading that you should have one account and "stick to it" so I figured I couldn't have two existing ones. Again, thanks for the help everyone, very much appreciated. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Nymf _hideliho! 21:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Were you referring to the Jane his wife account? Personally, I think this user name is better, and if you want to change namely because of the problems that occurred this last week, I instead encouraged don't be disuaded by it. It appears Baseball Bugs, for one, has apologized. But it's your screenname, not mine. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes that name. :) In all honestly I only want to use that one because of the name itself. But since this one dates back to four years I figured I'd just keep it, I just wish there a way to change my name. But it's no biggie, I was just seeing if that option was possible. DeadSend4 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

If you prefer the account name "Jane his wife" (a semi-obscure and clever choice), get with an admin and tell him/her what you want to do. They should be able to figure it out. Here's one idea: They could rename "Jane his wife" to "His boy Elroy" or something like that, and that should clear the way to renaming "DeadSend4" to "Jane his wife". I think so, anyway. But go ask an admin. That's the kind of work they pay them for. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Changing username if that's what you're looking for. — Ched :  ?  22:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You read my mind, I actually wanted to have another changed to "Meet George Jetson" but "his boy Elroy" sounds more clever. I'm not even that huge fan of the show, there are other cartoons I'm more fond of but they're a classic and I love the theme song. Thanks to both of you. I will look into that and yes that would be a better idea, now I know. :) DeadSend4 (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still chuckling at the "they get paid" part. I gotta get me that gig...=D CycloneGU (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I neglect to mention that they get paid in razzbuckniks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case, nevermind then. We all know they're worth about 1,000th of a Canadian dollar at this time. CycloneGU (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Apology

I would like to apologize for jumping to conclusions with insufficient investigation, and thus badgering you when you were innocent of being an ItsLassieTime sock. There is at least one positive that came out of the SPI, however... Coincidentally, there were in fact two recent socks of ILT out there, one of which edited just this morning. So you were a catalyst in that discovery, and got right much banged up in the process. I'm sorry for being a brownshirt who came down on you like a ton of lox. I hope your editing here in the future will be much more pleasant than it has been this past week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology and if I was rude to you I aplogize as well, I had so many people coming at me that everyone was an enemy to me at some point. For the record this week is not an example of how I've behaved since 2007 and prior. But again, thanks for the apology. DeadSend4 (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You were not rude to me. You were filled with justifiable righteous indignation. I've been there too. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Brownshirt"? ... is that anything like a Redshirt? ... and what song does that "Jane his wife" thing make me think of? — Ched :  ?  22:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OHHHH .,.,., ok .. never mind — Ched :  ?  22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Well, he said some of us were behaving like Nazi stormtroopers, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I can own up to it when I mess up. :) As for what song the user ID makes you think of, perhaps this will refresh your memory:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am extremely pleased at the way things are developing for you...and commend Bugs for doing the right thing by apologizing for his (justifiable) misinterpretation. DeadSend I wish you the best. Cyclone is a GREAT editor, and I hope you follow his advice. All the best to you! Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I do the right thing. As with the old saying, "Accidents will happen." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are quite kind. =) CycloneGU (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You are all very helpful and kind. I'm glad there are some people here who are willing to hear me out. I notice there have been several comments about my 'walls of text', again, I really want to stress this, I've been editing for four years. This is not an indicative of how I've contributed the last years, my 'walls of text' were only to explain my points. Which too many were ignore probably for that reason, but again, I was rather upset and had to repeat myself. As for my lack of knowledge with wiki itself like using talk pages or signing, I had many comments regarding how it looks like I can't use wiki when I respond to people. Forgive me, I only used wiki to edit and seldomly respond to people but I'm getting the hang of it. I'm sure I'm not the only contributor who comes back two years later to edit and feels like they're "new" again. With that said, I hope to continue to be a constructive contributor here. This situation has done a complete 180 and a lot of it has to do with many of you who helped us all move on. Happy Earth Day! DeadSend4 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments to me on CycloneGU's talk page are simply remarkable. First, I am not bitter because that would entail my taking this personally, which I do not. Purely in my capacity as a contributor to this wonderfully egalitarian, free encyclopedia, I do not believe that people who name-call, edit-war and use sock-puppets, among other bad behaviors, are appropriate here. To say that you did not do these things, by calling my assertions false, is demonstrably untrue. And telling another editor to "move on" because he calls you out on bad behavior is uncivil and not constructive. I urge you take responsibility for your own actions, rather than blaming others for pointing out bright-line facts. You did do these things. All your denials and schoolyard taunts cannot change that. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, everyone is moving on from this, you should too. I'm not going to continue to go in circles with you after I repeatedly asked you to leave me alone and stay away from my talk page. What I said is how I feel and it will remain that way. I've been contributing since my unblocking with no problem, except for you (which was the case before). If you come into my page again I'm going to request a interaction block. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Do whatever you feel you need to. You spoke falsehoods about me on another editor's talk page, and whatever you might believe, you don't have the right to do so. Stop writing falsely about me, and I have no reason to interact with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you done? I hope so. Bye. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DeadSend4 - that is the behaviour that he is speaking about. I thought you might need a second chance, but this is not how to execute a second chance. Please don't speak rudely to Tenebrae like that again. Thank you. CycloneGU (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

With that said: Tenebrae, you also need to back off and leave him be. Clearly his acting up is in response to you. This much is clear. You don't like each other; I can see that. Despite my advice to you about apologizing to him (which you stated you did try to do, still invoking this type of response), you are perhaps the cause of the behaviour. So you also need to stay away from this talk page and leave him be. Just stay away from each other for a little while. I had an issue with an editor, and even participated in noticeboard discussions regarding his behaviour, even being told directly by him that I was harassing him when I felt I was doing nothing of the sort, merely advising of something I noticed. A month later I've been in touch with him on his talk page regarding another matter in a more friendly manner. Things take time to heal. Thanks. CycloneGU (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks but you can only tell someone to not address you for so many times until you just have to be stern and rude. Anyways, I'm it's a beautiful day here in San Diego I'm not going to waste it fighting a week old argument. Again, the only rude from me you see is towards him, I've asked him to not post here so you can't expect me to not reply without getting upset. If it takes an interaction block then so be it, I want to continue to be a constructive contributor without reverting into the same old 'fights'. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I really wasn't trying to be rude when asking if he was done. But I think this is finally all behind us if no response follows. I just want to move on and have the past few days editing with no qualms (as I have for 2+ years). DeadSend4 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Apology

Thank you for the message. It's all good, I know things on here can get a bit headed once and a while. Let me assure you I never took anything to heart. I'm glad you are now familiar with talk pages, and it looks like you've learned from previous mistakes. Happy editing! ℥^nding·start 03:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

I see Amy Adams page at World Rally Championship Wiki (WRCPedia). She's not a rally driver, she's actually only an actress. That's maybe a hoax. Can you see it? --Nestor1010 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DeadSend4. You have new messages at CycloneGU's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Didn't know if you were watching, so I figured I'd template. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You have a message

Hello, DeadSend4. You have new messages at [[User talk:--CrohnieGal^Talk 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)|User talk:--CrohnieGal^Talk 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your latest post was a bad idea

Please retract this insensitive post and disengage from the user. It hardly needs to be said that making mocking remarks about the state of people's health does not lead to collegiate editing. Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Any more like that, and you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Regards, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

K! DeadSend4 (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, DeadSend4. You have new messages at Diannaa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:diannaa/tb}} template.

Christina Aguilera

Hi. I've noticed you've been editing this article recently. As you might have noticed, it's currently subject to a good article review. Currently, this means I'm going through the article and finding dead links, and checking all information is verifiable by reliable sources. I'm then going to go through the changes made in response to these and check they are all suitable, then check the wording and formatting, and the balance. Reverting stuff with a summary that equates to "I don't understand these changes" is unfortunately therefore unproductive. Could you please take a look at Talk:Christina Aguilera/GA2 before making any other changes, as they may be reverted. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not that hard, just provide what links in the entire article are dead and I will find the suitable links for them. The fact that you and others comepletely deleted information from the page, such as the fact she had certain albums certified platinum, Billboard top selling artist and so forth is uneccessary. If there is a link, it's correct why would it be reverted? I looked at the talk page and I see nothing for me to comment on. From now on, don't delete the sentences with dead link, label them as dead links and I will go and find the correct links rather than making me find the original sentence and making the process a complete mess. As for the balance, that's something I've been making sure is noted, if you look back at my history, I added the info about all of her critics and over singing, I added the info about BOTH Lotus and Bionic being flops, I also added several critic reviews that support that. So the balance on my part shouldn't be an issue. Do what changes you need to make but don't be coming in here completely deleting information I have provided over the past three years and think it's just ok. Valuable information such as her changing management (extremely crucial about her career) and several other things were deleted just because the links were. Why not find a correct link or let soemone else do so? I have no problem looking for them. Again, leave the dead links as they are if you're not going to do the work and find the easy way out to delete them. So stop. I hate repeating myself so don't make me do it again. DeadSend4 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't personally deleted anything, I've just been pointing out the issues. I'm about halfway through the article and I'm finding problems left, right and centre. I haven't even had a chance to check back on how the changes have been implemented, but if they are, as you say, just deleting stuff, as opposed to correcting the source, rewording etc etc, then I'll go and have a word. Cheers. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are old links that are dead or incorrect or say otherwise it'd be better if they all just had the citation needed/dead link so I can go and find the correct link. Many articles remove pages over the years so it shouldn't be deleted. Don't think I'm asking too much, if anything the person(s) who are making these changes are only making me do extra work by deleting things. DeadSend4 (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop having reverting my edits, i have added info, and removed info without sources and you revert it back with a unnecessary explanation that doesnt make any sense, you need to start learning to accept others opinions and not how you want it too look. --SillyHoe (talk) 10:36, 10

December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like you're staying true to your name. Your edits are making the page messy and I'm not going to let the page turn into a mess. So get off my talk page or I'll request a block interaction. I will also continue to revert the mess you make. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Christina Aguilera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congolese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I thought I had chosen the specific wiki link but looks like I didn't, whoops! DeadSend4 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert

You reverted an attempt to add a "Personal Life" section to the Aguilera page. Perhaps you may have noticed that I commented to this issue on the talk page. Any chance of you commenting there as well? - thewolfchild 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted it only because that is currently the standard any many artists don't have a personal life section. I actually prefer the personal life being seperate and attempted to do so (a few years ago) but was told that her career and personal life section should be lumped together. DeadSend4 (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Continuing the discussion here. - thewolfchild 01:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's bring Christina Aguilera to GA

Hey there, I have an idea you might be interested in. Khazar2 (talk · contribs) suggested that I clean up the Christina Aguilera biography and bring it to GAN, which is something that I would enjoy taking on. Since you have done a considerable amount of work to the article already, I was wondering if you would be interested in taking this on a a team project with me. We can divvy up the work and bring the article to GAN twice as fast. When you have a chance please let me know what you think, WikiRedactor (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Haven't had any issues with the recent edits and if I do I'll let you know. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Blanchett page

Are you still an editor? I'd like one to consider my recent comment on her talk page to amend something in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapadite77 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am, although much as I tried to correct that article it was reverted and still needs improvement. What are part of the article are you referring to? DeadSend4 (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Christina Aguilera. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Continue like this and this will be brought to WP:ANI —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you an admin who is going to read what my complaints are for the edits or are you just going to scold me about my tone? If it's the latter, find me someone who will follow through and read my complaints, thanks DeadSend4 (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at User talk:IndianBio, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.   the panda ₯’ 12:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

DeadSend4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For the past year, I had no issues nor did I ever name call anyone. Yesterday, someone tried add an image for not justifiable reason to an already large article. But the reverts continued. This escalated and I got nasty to some editors, that I will not shy away from and will admit I was not so pleasant. If you actually read through the history, I wasn't being this nasty until someone started to ignore me and just kept reverting the article. Which by the way, this is all over adding one photo of Mariah Carey. The article is considered too large, I have worked along other editors to downsize this article, and this ENTIRE thing escalated LITERALLY because someone wanted to add a picture to the article. One picture. Was I being heard? No I wasn't. The last time this happened, no one listened to me (even after being calm in the beginning, nothing) until I brought "I'm taking legal action" which honestly, I was never going to follow through with it, but like the last time, someone actually listened. Which it happened again, it's sad that's the only way someone will actually listen to me, even when I started out calm and respectful, but these editors pushed me over the edge. Why is it that despite my explanations in the talk page, all I was told was to watch my tone, no one cared about what I was trying to explain. I was just told I'm "rambling" by some random admin (IndianBio) who didn't even read or has ever edited the said article. What really irks me the most however, is that despite me calling and editor "slow" "blind" and hinted that they couldn't read. I myself, was called on various occasions a "twat" "bastard" "an idiot" I was called "stupid" and some editors used profanity. Did I use profanity? Yes. Why? Because I was trying to tell an admin that I was being called all of these names and I was being ignored. So I figured if it's ok for other editors to name call me AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Then why can't I? I know that this sounds like a toddler explaining his reason to throw a fit. But do you honestly think it's ok for me to be called a "twat" when the worst thing I said was that someone was pathetic (before the minutes leading to my block). Yet I'm the one who gets blocked? Can you not see how unfair that looks? Why am I blocked when the same editor said the words "fuck" "shit" and named worse things? Trust me, I tried to let an admin know this but IndianBio completely ignored me and only reported me when I tried getting her attention. Does any of this seems fair to you? So it's ok for an editor to call me a twat and get away with it? How is that ok? Explain that to me at least. DeadSend4 (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for any commentary (regardless of who started it). You're blocked for this, which violates WP:NLT, a bright-line policy. And now you're claming that it was a case of deliberately making a "legal threat" to get attention. Regardless of anything else going on in this mess, the first means the block stands alone as perfectly justified - and the second means the block is going to remain in place as from your phrasing ("like the last time") you've done this before and, therefore, a preventative block against further pointy disruption of that sort is entirely cromulent. If you're having problems with people being uncivil or not listening to you in a discussion, you move your way up the dispute resolution chain; you do not make pointy threats. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Nothing wrong with saying "fuck" or "shit". You're not blocked for WP:NPA, you're blocked for WP:NLT. If you accuse someone of calling you a "twat", you darned well better link to it. As I said on ANI when I blocked you, this was for the NLT only, and all other issues would still need to be investigated. A legal threat is an immediate bright line block the panda ₯’

Everything this editor is writing is false and totally misconstrued. Allow me to explain. Before our edit war, I went to his talk page to discuss the matter. He replied with I'm not reading this mess, get off my talk page. After subsequent tries, he removed it all together as trash. A different editor tried to discuss it with him once again, yet he ignored and deleted their polite attempt. Now comes the edit war. Not only did said editor keep removing a photo of Carey as he says, he removed her and her mention altogether (even though it's reliably sourced and documented). Each of my reverts said the same calm and collected message, Unauthorized removal of sourced content. Already reverted by two editors. Refuses to converse on talk page and just reverts messages. His summaries ranged from whiny, pathetic editors (after being reverted by 2 editors), bitter Mariah Carey fan, your idol is tumbling down the charts. After the block on the article, and Acalamari graciously allowing us to remain after warring and posting on the talk page, he continues on the warpath towards both of us: disgusted with Acalamari's actions (of protecting the page and opening discussion and not blocking us?), how pathetic if you consider yourself an admin, calls me a 'lunatic', and sadly, compares us to a case of his cousins supposed cerebral palsy. Disgusting to even joke about something like that. It gets worse (I've remained 100% civil): Mariah Carey fan/stan, bored because she has nothing going on, don't bring this trash/mess here, tells user HD to "Don't chime in if you don't know what you;re talking about, you look silly" and "Leave this page alone and go back to editing Mariah" to me, tells HD again to get off this talk page since you don't know what the hell you're talking about, You're not Mariah so don't try that. Go back to idolizing that bloated singer and her still broken wrist, I'll be happy to throw you out the door, FF (use your imagination) and after told me to fuck you cunt. Honestly, this guy has no idea how to be civil or normal in a conversation, removed factual/reliably sourced information, makes crazy legal threats, tries to reign ownership of the article, tells several editors to fuck off when they don't agree, cusses out gracious admins who should have blocked him etc. He just doesn't get it. Yes, towards the end of the discussion, after much, much, much deliberation, I called him a twat lol. He needs to remain blocked. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@ the panda ₯’ "If you accuse someone of calling you a "twat", you darned well better link to it." Well that's it, you're not going to bother to acknowledge everything else I just said. Nor are you going to read the sequence of events that lead to this. All I wanted was the article to not be expanded for no reason because someone wanted to add an image to it. It then escalated to this. But if you're not going to read the talk page, the article's history, along with the edits from the past week you would see that. I worked with other editors to downsize the article, even though I thought it wasn't needed I removed many sources, links, information from the article. But to be honest, you're not going to bother to even look through the edits, or the talk page, you're just going to take everyone's word for it. Your response to what I said was basically, "this is what you did, I'm ignoring everything else in your statement and if someone called you this show me a link", basically it's a nice way of say something other editors have said to me in a worse way. Which I also responded in an immature way. But at that point, no one cared to listen to me, all I was being told was to watch my tone. Everything else was ignored, I never got to that point until I started noticing this. Editors going on my talk, having not bothered to read why I was trying to revert an image (article size being too large - no need to add a third image) - they didn't care they went on to harass me saying I was trying to own this article. No, it just doesn't need to be expanded by adding one unnecessary image, when other editors had came to the agreement there was no need to make the article larger by adding unneeded information/images. So what if I deleted it from my talk page? Funny you say there's nothing wrong with saying fuck or shit, because I was threatened of being blocked 1-2 years ago for saying it once, but with these editors it's ok? Anyways, you probably nodded off, since you're already convinced and aren't going to bother to read through the edits and history. So if you're answer is to look up when I was insulted right after you told me brief explanation of what I did wrong, then you're just saying you don't care about anything else I said. DeadSend4 (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Not that the admins would bother reading this, but had I just been heard and someone said, "I see what you're saying, what other ways could we downsize the article without having to compromise the images being changed?" I would have been fine. But as I've said many times, I was not heard, just belittled. I would have offered to find better links for the sources I was trying to delete, but no once cared, I would have offered to leave the images as they were if there was another way to NOT increase the article by 1,263 bytes when previously. Months ago, I was accused of trying to expand the article. Ironic this all happened because I was at this point, trying to downsize it. At that point I had no idea it was one of the largest, at least for a pop star and that it needed some trimming. So I worked with other editors to do so. But now that I tried to prevent it from expanding because someone thought adding an image would improve the article in some way, I'm trying to "take over the article". It's easier to insult and tell me what I'm doing wrong that it is for you to work with me. DeadSend4 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

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).

DeadSend4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I see that a request for unblock is not going to guarantee that no admin will go back and read my history, article history and edit history. While I think that makes no sense, especially since I have been requesting this PRIOR to this happening, I would like to request another admin other than the panda ₯’ to review it. To the admin DangerousPanda, don't take this as me being "rude" or "uncivil" since I have a feeling you would comment first on my character and not the problem itself in my request, which is what you have shown. There are editors who I have worked with in the past who would be happy to tell you that I worked alongside them with no qualms. As of today, the other editors who have also insulted me have not gotten no punishment. So I would like to request another admin who will actually listen to me. In the past day I have been patient and waited to a response, which even though I did, was not helpful and never answered my questions. I read the regulations for requesting an unblock, and as it says there, I'm not blaming anyone else for my actions, I know it was me who caused myself to get blocked. But if someone would have actually listened to me prior to this, it would have not turned out that way. Instead I was reminded of the rules, my tone and what I shouldn't be doing. Yet my questions were never answered. How was a suppose to not get upset when I was being ignored? the panda ₯’ basically told me to get lost and not bothered to read anything else I said. So if there is another admin, who would actually listen to my side, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. DeadSend4 (talk) 8:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I've read over your side of the story, and I can only reiterate what DP and other admins have already told you - you're blocked for making a legal threat and until that threat is either retracted or acted upon and a legal conclusion reached IRL, you will not be unblocked. You don't need to post reams of text iterating every insult that's ever been levelled at you and every editing issue you've ever had - just saying "I explicitly withdraw the threat of legal action" would suffice. Since you have yet to do so (leastways anywhere that I've looked), you will not be unblocked. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Let's make this very clear: all the stuff you're suggesting an admin should read is irrelevant, because you were not blocked for any of that, nor were you blocked because of anything about any images. You were blocked for making a legal threat that you have since indicated was made for the sole purpose of disruption. And although I (an "admin other than DangerousPanda") explicitly told you that above (as has DP), you've shown no indication of understanding that, or even of having read where that was said to you. Until you recognise why you were blocked and stop posting long rants about what you think you were blocked for, you're highly unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I never said I was blocked for any of that. But you are just choosing to not read anything that I said, which I expected. Again, if you're just going to come in and tell me (again) what I did wrong and ignore everything else, then don't bother responding. I read everything that was said to me and admitted to what I did. But you you don't care nor did you see that. "You were blocked for making a legal threat that you have since indicated was made for the sole purpose of disruption", when and where did I not acknowledge this? Did you just skim through it because you thought it was a rant? If you call these "rants" then why take the time to respond to me if you're not going to bother? Again, can another admin please come in to help? Because both of you are just going to remind me again as to what I did wrong as if I am realizing this for the first time. If your response starts with, "you need to remember that..." then don't lift a finger to reply. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Should I just make a list of what I did wrong? Because it seems like all you are all doing is reminding me, so would it be best for me to lay it all out, what I did wrong, what I shouldn't have said, how I can learn from it? If that's the only way any of you are going to not ignore that other parts of what I said then I'll do it. I'm not trying to be sarcastic or snarky (which you probably already assumed and were ready to inform me of this telling me I'm also "ranting") because I will do this if it will make you read everything else I said and not ignore it. You guys act like I had no idea I made any legal threats or that I'm so shocked I'm being blocked for saying something vulgar. As I said before, it's easier for you to hold your gavel and tell me what I did wrong than to even care about what I am requesting. I've said it several times, I know I did wrong, but all you keep doing is giving me a new list of other things I did wrong. DeadSend4 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

"that I'm so shocked I'm being blocked for saying something vulgar" - Since you utterly refuse to listen when you're told vulgarity had nothing at all to do with your block, there's nothing that can be done to help you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Making legal threats would be an example of being vulgar, but I'm not going to repeat myself since you're not going to speak of anything else but that. Which I predicted and asked that you not respond/waste your time if it's going to be the same answer. Spare yourself the headache and ignore me/this. From my previous "rant": If you call these "rants" then why take the time to respond to me? I'll wait for someone else. Have a blessed day. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely nothing to do with vulgarity! It's a simple rule of Wikipedia that if you wish to take legal action, or while there is a threat of legal action outstanding, you may not edit the project. That is all. The reasons for your threat, or any other incidents that came before it, have no bearing on an unblock - WP:NLT is one of Wikipedia's few hard rules. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to convince a reviewing admin that you fully understand WP:NLT and why we have it (and I'll say again, it's not about vulgarity), unequivocally withdraw your threat of legal action, and make a convincing commitment that you will not do it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To all those involved. Even if he does pledge to retract and never attempt legal action again, let's not forget the gross incivility/ownership and warring he is involved in. I understand the legal part is the most important issue to be resolved at the moment, but please read my case above, and understand that he needs a lot of explaining to do aside from that matter. Cheers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 16:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not what he's blocked for. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yunshui and Boing! said Zebedee Thank you both for answering my questions. I know those threats were what got me here and I regret the other things (which I know is not why I'm being blocked) that happened prior to the statement being made. I, DeadSend4, explicitly withdraw the threat of legal action, it was never a serious threat and it will never be written/said by me. I can go on and apologize about the other things and words I have used but that is not what you asked of me so I will save that for another time. DeadSend4 (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Pinging DangerousPanda, The Bushranger and Yunshui, as DeadSend4 has withdrawn the legal threat and this page hasn't been edited for over two days. Acalamari 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On a purely procedural level, I'm okay with unblocking: since the block was specifically for making legal threats, other issues don't come into it. I'm not going to lift the block until I've heard from (at least) DP, though. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• On a purely procedural level, the legal threat has been retracted. While blocked, some new - and unacceptable - behaviours have raised their ugly heads - and I believe that when I placed this block, I stated that their other behaviours would also need to be looked at and additional reasons for blocks imposed. In theory, we can therefore have those addressed. However, we could chalk this up as a learning experience with the understanding that they were --> <-- this close to further blocks for the other actions. This community has behavioural guidelines that they agreed to - and they will be held accountable the panda ₯’ 21:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to say thank you for the admins who helped me and actually answered my questions. I will never mention and regret making that statement. I'd also like to apologize to Acalamari, I'm sorry, I've appreciated your help on this article this past year and I unfortunately went off on you. I can address what other behavior I displayed, but since this topic in particular is not about that I won't (at the moment). I will remain civil. I realized it's not worth the frustration, and if I'm ever treated the way I was, I won't lash out, I'll just move on in hopes that another editor reads and sees my side sooner than later. DeadSend4 (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, based on that, the retraction of the legal threat and DP's acquiescence (at least that's how I read it, ping if I've grossly misunderstood), I'm unblocking. DeadSend4, please try to keep a cooler head from now on; you've got quite a few experienced admins looking over your shoulder and if you get blocked again it won't be lifted easily. Feel free to drop by my talkpage if you find yourself in danger of getting into a dispute in future. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again. DeadSend4 (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Your apology

Hi DeadSend4, I acknowledge and accept the apology that you made here. While I can't speak for anyone else involved in what happened last week, I am willing to put the whole thing behind us and move on; after all, you and I have been editing the Christina Aguilera article for over seven years. Given all the hard work you've put into that page, it would have been a loss if you had remained blocked. Acalamari 22:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera Malaysia concert

Why did you remove the Malaysia concert? Simon (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? She's performed at Wango Tango/KIIS-FM Jingle Ball (both popular concerts in Los Angeles held every year), some charity concert held by Justin Timberlake a few years ago, New Orleans Jazz Festival a few weeks ago, so how is this one concert different? The only other mentions are Lilith Fair which was at the very beginning of her career (which also isn't needed) and the charity concerts in her Philatropy section (which go with that section of the article). But there's been many concerts/public event performances that I didn't mention. Is this a charity concert? As far as I know from the source it's a private/fan concert. DeadSend4 (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Revamping

Would you like to participate? Simon (talk) 04:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You're already starting again...

These problems before I came along? Let's not weigh in my edits to the article in comparison to yours buddy, because you have no room to even take a breath. I CLEARLY stated that if I took out any well-documented information that the Aguilera veterans thought was important, to feel free to re-place. Focus on your own work, before you get yourself into more trouble.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This achievement should be noted? Mate, this article isn't meant to litter with every little accomplishment or success she earned. That is why the article is fucking huge and written like an Aguilera fansite.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Please get off my talk page or I will request a block interaction. I will discuss these edits on her talk page with you and other editors, but do not come in here if you're going to start this again. Everything for the past few days, has been fine - even with Simon who called me a bastard/idiot/stupid before. This is my first and last warning so I do not want to see a reply here. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You cannot threaten or warn me for writing to you on your talk page after you've started throwing shade and weak accusations. You're on thin ice, so comments like "it was fine before you came along" is just an example of you ownership issues and bias opinions of me as an editor because of Carey. So no, you don't start because I've improved the first half of the article exponentially.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Acalamari. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Christina Aguilera. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Refrain from coming on my talk page because me and you have nothing to discuss, and I predicted you were going to do this. Now leave. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for organizing meatpuppet campaigns, per https://twitter.com/XtinaIsGod and http://www.afterld.com/forum/showthread.php?78977-Christina-s-Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 15:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

DeadSend4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How dare you block me for something I didn't even do. How the hell am I responsible for organizing this when you have no proof? This is another campaign against me and you all have the nerve to block me when you have no proof? I have no idea who this twitter handle is and if you can show me legible proof I organized this let me see it now. (personal attack redacted). SHOW ME WHERE I ORGANIZED SOME KIND OF CAMPAIGN? SHOW ME WHERE THE PROOF IS TO JUSTIFY THIS BLOCK?DeadSend4 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The timing of you engaging in disruptive editing and the onset of a sock/meat puppet attack is highly suspicious. The personal attacks in this unblock request coupled with your recentedit summaries tell me you are not here to make an encyclopedia. Chillum 19:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

(edit conflict) I was going to remove this request as it is an inappropriate unblock request, with personal attacks on fellow editor. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I took the personal attacks into account when considering the unblock request. Chillum 19:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

So basically when other editors make a smart ass comment or call me a twat they get off easily, but if I make a comment to IndianBio and she goes running to someone for help. I get blocked? So now no one is apologizing to me for accusing (and blocking me) for having some twitter handle I don't know of and organizing a campaign somewhere online? Then you guys wonder why I get upset. IndianBio needs to go back to editing other articles along with the other Mariah Carey fans who started messing with her page. Trust me, you can block me for the pathetic and hypocritical reasons you state. But this is not going to stop until the page is back to its former glory. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree the case is not clear cut. You are welcome to make another unblock request and have another admin look at it. I do not mind if that admin comes to another conclusion. I recommend that you leave out the personal attacks, they do not help your case. Chillum 19:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

DeadSend4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked and accused for starting some kind of campaign and was told a twitter handle was mine. NONE of this is true and you are all going to sit back and think it's ok to block me for this? Personal insults aside (which I've also been insulted but none of you care) I don't understand why you guys expect me to remain calm and civil when I get treated like this. Now that I pointed out (and no one has the balls to show me proof that I had done this "campaign" on some forum) the focus is now changing to "oh you insulted someone". No, I called IndianBio out, and anytime I do, instead of conversing with me she goes and runs to another admin and cries about me. You are all such complete biased and blind editors. What bothers me the most is that PeterGriffin, Simon or whatever it's name is and IndianBio ALL were not regular editors on Christina's page. But once I removed ONE Mariah Carey picture, lambs come in a remove "fan fluff" and "unreliable sources" when I go to her legacy page and I see the EXACT same sources (by sources I mean magazines, online websites) but on here the source "is not reputable" and needs to be removed. I'm just glad some people are finally seeing the pathetic actions of some editors. Also, because I'm so used to this, I am not calling any editor pathetic, I'm calling their actions pathetic. I just wanted to point that out since most admins, when they read my complaints, they filter out what I'm actually requesting and point out the one sentence and say "you just insulted an editor!!!". Which is not the case but I am noting that since I had a feeling an admin was going to point that one thing out and ignore everything else. I'm saving you an extra step so you don't need to reply to my request. Looking for an actual non-biased, non Mariah Carey fangirl who will read what I'm asking and not remind me of the rules and regulations of Wiki. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've heard horror stories about attending Mariah Carey concerts, and I'm male - which means I'm not likely a "Mariah Carey fangirl". I've carefully read everything above. I've carefully compared it to the requirements in WP:GAB and WP:AAB. I've extremely carefully considered WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR. Most importantly, however, the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia take precedence: attacks, discussing others, failing to be civil...and even a key element: not even addressing the reason for the block. If you're going to spew stuff like this about your fellow editors again, I will disable talkpage access. You're making accusations without proof - which doesn't have any place in an unblock request that's only supposed to focus on YOU and YOUR behaviour - nobody else's the panda ₯’ 20:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

I still don't understand, I'm being accused of starting some kind of campaign and I was blocked for that reason (which no one seems to care I was falsely accused even after I ask for proof). You keep telling me to stop the personal attacks, stop being so hostile, while not bothering to read anything else I have said. I'm not sitting here in shock because I'm blocked and have no idea why I am. I know why I'm blocked and addressed this several paragraphs ago, but I'm sure most of you skimmed through my writing. How would you feel if someone wrongfully accused you of doing something and then being blocked? I'm sure you don't have that worry since you're so high up and don't care to come down to see how all us peasants live. So now all of you pretend that I wasn't wrongly accused and turn it around to say I personally attacked someone? This same person who the only time interacts with me is to report me and doesn't bother to converse with me. She/he comes on the article (an editor I've never seen edit on this same article) to revert MY edits, no one else. Then when I try and revert it, they ask for a consensus. Something that I've never seen done personally on an editor my 8 years editing this article. I don't expect none of you to see how biased that is and how the proof is there (along with other edits), it's obvious I'm being targeted. Then once you have a little ammo you throw the "he organized this campaign" without having the dignity to show proof. None of you are going to care or see that my edits were solely targeted. Don't give me the "your history shows me that..." because this happened from a handful of individuals (3 mainly) who purposely revert my edits immediately and two of them calling me a bastard, twat, cunt, stupid and getting away with it. Do you even care that I've been mistreated and expect me to just let people insult me since history has shown me no admins care? I bet you're going to be quick to point out that I haven't acknowledge the reason why I was blocked, I stated that the first time. Like I said (which has been proven true and true), most of you are going to skim and ignore the facts I'm presenting and remind me of what I did wrong. Making it seem like it's so many editors against me when others (not including the surge of Christina fans in the past two days which I'm sure you'll still accuse me of bringing them here) have defended me. There's been a call to remove me from commenting on my talk page, why because you'll be afraid someone out there will actually see how I've been mistreated? I know you're asking me for an apology for going on someone's talk page and calling them out (this same person who also wrongfully accused me) - but are any of you going to bother to see/care that I should be apologized for being accused? No of course, none of you care. DeadSend4 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'm being ignored after I was falsely blocked and accused for something I didn't do. Now everyone is pretending like that didn't happen and I remain blocked with no response in a week. You guys expect me to be so peachy and sweet when I'm being treated like shit? DeadSend4 (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely, we expect you to stop using Wikipedia. Chillum 04:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"If you're going to spew stuff like this about your fellow editors again, I will disable talkpage access. You're making accusations without proof." Why is it everyone trusts other editors words but when I say something I'm asked for proof. I will be glad to show proof but no one has bothered to read anything I have said. It's funny how I get a response after waiting over a week and it's likely because I used the word shit, which by the way, I've been told by an admin that there is nothing wrong with using that word on here. If you want me to show proof of that too I gladly will. It's shocking how no one is seeing how I've been treated here. You guys are perfectly fine with blocking me from the beginning for something I didn't do and quickly change the reason to something else. Even after I acknowledged it, and showed how my edits were being reverted and still was being accused everyone turned a blind eye to this. Why is it the admins are so quick to call me out but refuse to read anything else? DeadSend4 (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Two other things, I was given a warning for attacking Aclamari on their talk page, which I do not recall, but this is also from the same person who also accused me falsely. Do you guys even care that I was initially warned over something I didn't even do, then blocked for the same reason? Granted maybe this person thought it was the talk page and meant the article itself? Either way no one bothered to see the evidence, which is why I've been upset and frustrated as to why no one seems to care. Second, this was the reply from an admin from a previous incident, ""If you accuse someone of calling you a "twat", you darned well better link to it." Then I get a similar response this time from another admin, "You're making accusations without proof." Is there a pattern here? Basically ignoring the facts and quickly going into the "well you're still a bad person for doing this and this" (even though they just skimmed through everything else). Also, I'M making accusations without proof? So someone else saying I organized some kind of campaign online to bring random Christina fans to edit this page all because I used a hashtag and suddenly I'm the perpetrator? Yet you have no proof. But I'M the one making the accusations without proof which I have and have stated I'd be glad to show. But once I do, I'm sure everyone will pretend not to see. Isn't that the pattern here? DeadSend4 (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please link me to the meatpuppet/sockpuppet investigation? I'd like to read it, and see the proof, other than a link to someone's Twitter and a thread on a forum. I don't find that to be definitive proof of DeadSend4 organising a so-called "campaign". Thanks, Melonkelon (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this Melonkelon. I would like to see this proof as well. The recent edits on her article (by recent I mean within this past two weeks the actual good ones done by some editors who actually saw where the issues were and courteous enough to find citations) have been wonderful. Moments before I was blocked for organizing a campaign which I never heard of until I saw it on here like everyone else, I worked with an editor and voiced my opinion, and guess what? We worked together and they didn't have to personally attack me. I've worked with many respectful editors, so to everyone with the fire torches, stop making it seem like I'm fighting with everyone. I count with my fingers the individuals and make a list of the wonderful ones I've worked with. But as I've said before MANY times, none of you care. I would love to continue to edit with these sensible editors, the article has been greatly improved since it was last tarnished in the weeks prior. Christina is barely in her 30's (already married with two kids and looking younger than ever) and I've been grateful to have contributed to her article and working with others for the past 7 years. For me to be blocked after all this time, mind you over a false accusation, is unbelievable to me. I know I've been less than kind to some editors on here, but please go look at how I was treated and go to their talk page and find me where they were warned for insulting another editor because you won't find it. If there is a warning I will retract my last statement but at this point I don't need to check myself since everyone just seems to find an excuse to immediately report me. DeadSend4 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been asked for proof from admins whenever I claimed something but you are all turning a blind eye to this? I'm seriously asking for someone to show me proof, yet here I am still falsely accused and none of you care. I'm still waiting... 03:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to do another block request, I want to get this resolved without any further problems. I feel like I'm being watch until I say something that would have an admin respond and tell me what I'm doing wrong. I've been fasley accused and now I'm being ignored and it's been about a month since I've gotten an answer. DeadSend4 (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lambs

You keep calling people lambs, what does that mean? Chillum 19:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to go into too much detail but if you're willing to go through the editing history on Christin's page, you'll see this entire edit war/mess is started by Mariah Carey fans (notably PeterGriffin who edits her main page, discography, singles, music videos) mind you it never edited Christina's page prior to an image of Mariah being added on her legacy page. Because I didn't want the article to be expanded because this person wanted to add a picture of Mariah, an edit war started. These fans of Mariah, or lambs as the once-singer herself calls her fans, have since been "removing fan fluff" which is basically them trying to diminish her accomplishments. Seriously though, articles from Blender, RollingStone were removed in her legacy, vocal ability section, but go to the same sections on Mariah's page and I see sources from Blender, Cove, RS all of which were removed here because of fan fluff. This is just one example. But this is all attributed to the lambs, as much as they want to make it about me it's not. How could it be, it's only one of me and these fans who have nothing better to do but remove fan fluff ( which they don't bother finding citations for them) all in an effort to somehow make their idol seem more relevant? I don't know but it's sad and pathetic as I've said and I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I think you and thePanda (forgot their s/n from an earlier incident so I apologize for not remembering the username) have been the only admins who have taken the time and read what I have said. So thank you for acknowledging my complaints, not skimming through and personally insulted me. It's a rare instance for me so I need to give thanks when it is due. A real admin. DeadSend4 (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that if this last un-block request is denied that talk page access be removed. Seems to have taken personal attacks off the table. Mlpearc (open channel) 20:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit is the one which triggered the suspicions regarding the off-wiki campaign organization. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yet proves nothing about me organizing a campaign. Since I can only comment on here and not on Christina's talk page, I would like to thank WikiRedactor for his recent edits on the article and ACTUALLY READING and seeing my point of view. It's things like this that are so hard to come by. Funny how I was told to stop making changes in the article and to go on the talk page. Then when I do, no one comments until a few days later. Yet the same people who reported me have the time to go on admins pages and trash me. I don't expect any of you to care though since you all have it in your heads that this is all me. Yeah, I'm wrongfully accused, editors have called me a twat, bastard, idiot, stupid, got away with it but I've been blocked twice. *waits for an admin the come, ignore what I've wrote and tell me that I am still not acknowledging why I am being blocked again (and again) even though I did several days ago* DeadSend4 (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Further unblock requests

Further unblock requests can be done through Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Chillum 06:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)