User talk:Riomet

Ashley Tisdale discography

Your formatting changes don't bother me, but I reverted your changes because you deleted valid citations from the article. Citations for the information provided is critical. If you restore the formatting changes without deleting citations, I won't object.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayerische Singles Chart

It looks to be an airplay chart for a German radio station. Since it's for a single station, it shouldn't be included.—Kww(talk) 21:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Hudgens

Your edits quite bothers me since you have removed most of the information (which had citations and sources) on this page. I know you are new here so you don't have to just remove tons of information concerning with a page. Actually, it will be more helpful if you add some than to exclude some. Kikkokalabud (talk)

Images

Hello. commons:Image:AshleyTisdale20.jpg is based on the flickr image [1] which you uploaded. It looks like a red carpet shot, and those are usually copyrighted by the photographer. Where did you get it? You can't just mark it CC-BY on flickr if it's not your photo. Gimmetrow 19:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flickrwashing. I used TinEye to check the image and it is indeed copyrighted, in this instance to WireImage. See here (or if you care to look at the WireImage website, it can be seen here - 2nd row, 3rd from the left as it comes up on my screen). Tabercil (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Tisdale discography

Please do not revert/remove cleanup efforts made to this page. Table formatting should be with class="wikitable" and contain no elaborate colors, boldfacing, etc. Thanks - eo (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Hey, I didn't understand why I were unblocked. I am not related with that MSoldi and his other accounts. Only because we have been editing on the same kind of articles don't mean that we are related. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You do not provide any reasons why we should disregard the checkuser findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MSoldi. — Sandstein 16:57, 11 December 2008 (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.

Comment to any reviewing admin: the checkuser report speaks to the technical side. Behaviourally, I detected a strong common thread of interests and styles, and remain convinced that this is Voices4ever. It's a shame that she sockpuppeted and vandalized herself into an indefinite block, but the hoax albums she created as Msoldi were unacceptable, as is Flickr washing.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a new member here on Wikipedia. Everyone made some error...I didn't know that images aren't free, sorry. But I didn't created any hoax album how MSoldi did. And well, as I said previously, only because we have the same interests don't prove that we're are related. —Riomet(talk) 16:43, 11 December 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, there's a way to prove that I am that MSoldi? Because I am not him. Probably it is an error.

Decline reason:

If you are not him, then he is using your computer and interested in the same subjects. Also, when he meets someone, you know the person he has met, too. Your claim is therefore implausible. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:07, 11 December 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

There's nobody using my computer except me and my family. Can you check the IP please? I don't that they aren't the same. I am actually a brazilian and here, Tisdale is so popular. Probably he is a brazilian too with a similar IP code but not the same. Also, I didn't understand what you mean with your second sentence. Also, it's impossible for my IP being the same as MSoldi's. Possibly, the IP is similar but not the same. That blocked user may lives close to me, I don't know. But I'm not he or she

Decline reason:

It isn't merely that you share a few of the same interests as the other account, or that ONLY the IPs match. The issue here is that you have made edits which are essentially identical to two earlier blocked accounts, in both style, tone, and in most cases exact wording. It is hard to claim you have been mistakenly identified with other accounts when you do the exact same thing (and not just kinda similar, but really exactly the same things!) as the earlier accounts. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:41, 11 December 2008 (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.

The ip has already been checked; a link to the checkuser results is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MSoldi. You should probably know that you don't have an unlimited number of unblock requests; if you have anything to add which might help us believe you, this is the time, because it's probable that this is your last unblock request. I should also tell you that the naughty little brother is the most common lie that blocked users tell, so administrators tend not to believe it unless the available evidence supports the existence of a naughty family member. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a little brother actually. And my parents didn't edit here. What I want to say is that I am not that blocked user. It's impossible for the IP being the same as MSoldi's. Also, as I said previously, here on Brazil there's A LOT of Tisdale's fans, she is popular here. Probably this user lives close to me, I don't know. But I'm not he or she. —Riomet(talk) 17:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you aren't User:Kww, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I copied the wrong code, sorry. —Riomet(talk) 17:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how can I prove that I am not that blocked user? —Riomet(talk) 17:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]