User talk:Rjrya395

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Rjrya395! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 00:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, I'm Calidum. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Floyd Mayweather Jr. without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. 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. Calidum T|C 19:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Malagasy, Egyptian, Armenian, Algerian, Burkinabe, Cambodian, Somali, Moroccan, Swazi, Comorian, Sudanese, Angolan, Ivorian, Tunisian, Congolese, Rwandan, Liberian, Cameroonian, Mauritanian, Eritrean, Gabonese, Chadian, Mozambican, Malian, Central African, Gambian, Cape Verdean, Burundian, Mahoran and Congolese people

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the FAQ linked in DPL bot's message above, links to "XYZ (disambiguation)" are meant to be retained even if they redirect to "XYZ" because that signals other editors that they are meant to link to the disambiguation pages. See WP:INTDAB. Nardog (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove "(disambiguation)" in links where they are intended to direct to disambiguation pages, as I've explained above. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of contemporary ethnic groups, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rjrya395. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberated Africans in Sierra Leone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary ethnic groups

Hello, Rjrya395. You have new messages at Grutness's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Grutness...wha? 05:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia

Because Ethiopia was occupied in 1936 and annexed to Italian East Africa. Despite having been occupied for a few years, Italians built buildings, roads, etc.. and there were about 100,000 Italian settlers. It wasn't a simply military occupation LucaGaletti95 (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Your recent editing history at List of music considered the worst shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 08:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 19:50, 20 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).

Rjrya395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Did you not read what you just re-added?

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. Sro23 (talk) 20:18, 20 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.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any further block evasion will result in your block being extended. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So how long have you been Sergecross's bitch? Rjrya395 (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it you are so obsessed with me? I’m just one of like ten or something people who disagree with you at an RFC. Just because I’m the only participant who bothers to explain all the ways you’re not handling yourself as you’re supposed to, so you fixate on me, always making it about me somehow? It’s very weird. Anyways, if you’d just chill out and learn how the website works, you might be able to make some positive impact. If you keep on doing whatever you want with edit warring and block evading, you’re just going to be wasting your time. People thrown tantrums like this all the time. It won’t get you anywhere. Anyone who know Admin Basics 101 will know how to handle you. So please rethink your approach. Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Sergecross, maybe it's because as admin, you first action should have been to delete an obvious case of vandalism/trolling. But no! Instead you have done nothing but be an obstructionist prick towards anyone wanting to remove it and force them to do this red-tape dance in hopes they ragequit! And how cute you doing this "why are obsessing over me" shit! Keep ignoring everything I'm saying.

And when's the RFC going to close? The thing didn't have any activity til I came along. What, you don't want give up your "you can't delete this, this is still being discuss" hammer? Or are you afraid that person that going have to come in is going to dismiss your side and make you delete the Sgt. Pepper entry? Rjrya395 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has this approach historically worked out well for you - complaining about and insulting someone, and then asking for their help when you need help understanding something? Figure it out yourself if you’re going to (continue to) be like that. Ask nicely or look it up yourself. Sergecross73 msg me 10:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again, Sergecross! Ignoring everything I said! Here, let me spell it out slowly for you: WHEN. WILL. THE. R. F. C. CLOSE? Rjrya395 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If Wikipedia is now pushing the article as a somehow objective account of the worst popular music, rather than a list of music that has been called the worst, then Beetles followers have impunity when it comes to gutting their band from the article (i.e. "This outfit is hailed by fans and critics alike, there's no way any of their records stand among the definitive worst in history")." — Micky Moats

Sock puppet says what? Rjrya395 (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Template:Heavy metal music does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, start explaining why you're making your edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. David Gerard (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi. I tried to categorize the Template:Minimal music (EDM) footer to the categorize:Music genre templates and somehow every article in that template was also categorized as a music genre template. Please tell me how to fixed this.

Rjrya395 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rjrya, it was only the first edit that caused that reaction, you fixed it by enclosing it in <noinclude/>. Categories can be very slow to update. You can also force articles to refresh by using the parameter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_music?action=purge – Þjarkur (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Rjrya395 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of styles of music: S–Z, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bluegrass (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Folk music : Polka

This was a perfect example of harmful pipe:It was hiding the correct link to an article from the navigated general subject "Folk music". I Edited the template. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As I see from your contributions, you are interested in the subject. May I suggest you to update the template with the entries from Category:Folk music by country. It looks like the template is badly underpopulated. A piece of advice: If there is no corresponding article, please leave the red link. This will be an indication that the corresponding important subject is missing. If you really hate red links, you better replace them with redirects to articles which cover the subject in a similarly general way, not to just a single song (for example, Croatian folk music redirects to Music of Croatia#Folk music). Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to List of styles of music: A–F, List of styles of music: G–M and List of styles of music: N–R while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting inappropriately and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. See Special:Contributions/2600:8800:5A80:1394:0:0:0:0/64. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of styles of music: N–R, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pub rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of styles of music: N–R, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pub rock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food Records

That was an odd one! {{Infobox album}} was used further down the page, and was auto-italicising the lot, as if it was a work to be italicised. Adding |italic_title=no fixes it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Sweet Black Angel, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

? Rjrya395 (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions work much better on talk pages than in edit summaries.[1]

The comment that begins this section is the consensus warning for unsourced/undiscussed genre changes, such as the one you made. NPOV means content must be written "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Presumably the intent is to make clear that your opinion of the genre may represent bias ("Genesis is progressive rock. Therefore anything by Genesis is progressive rock.") and is not a published view. It is your opinion, not a representation of what reliable sources say.

Rock stayed because I was reverting your change, not verifying existing content, much as your recent removal of "rock" should not be taken as an indication that you feel everything else in the article is appropriately sourced. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grave dancing, disruption

If you don't stop the grave dancing over the blocked socks and the disruptive editing and bad faith accusations towards others in relation to the content about Sgt. Pepper, you'll earn another block. That a sock puppet made edits you disagree with does not invalidate everyone else's arguments or positions, and accusing them of having known all along is bad faith. Read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and learn to edit with others, or your time here will be limited. -- ferret (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck off, Ferret. Rjrya395 (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Rjrya395 that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 20:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a long list of disruptive and uncivil edits directed at Sergecross and Ferret, culminating with this. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 25 July 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).

Rjrya395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to point out that Sergecross either intentionally or unintentionally enabled a troll campaign by a certain banned user to keep Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band on the list of music considered the worst.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Sro23 (talk) 00:07, 26 July 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.

@Drmies and Sro23: I've revoked talk page access and increased the block to 2 weeks, as the editor continues to taunt and make bad faith accusations against others involved in a content dispute. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to this edit particularly. When this block expires, I encourage you to steer clear of the topic of Sgt. Pepper or face a topic ban or longer block. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already. Interested parties, see diff for ANI discussion. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 9 August 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).

Rjrya395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sorry for my behavior for the last few days. It is clear that I am letting my passion get the better of me. It is just frustrating knowing that at an obvious troll edit has led to this ridiculous long discussion (that wouldn't be necessary if the people in charge of it had some sense) that keeps dying out unless someone like me comes along and makes a scene to revive it. But anyway, I'm done. If you unblock me, I would not be involve in this discussion any more. Just please, end this once and for all. Rjrya395 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The easiest way to end this drama is by keeping you blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 9 August 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).

Rjrya395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to point out that I am fully aware why I have been blocked. I have been uncivil to those that in my anger I've concluded they do not deserve civility, but that is wrong-headed of me to do think that way. I am sorry. Rjrya395 (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:55, 9 August 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).

Rjrya395 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

*I will not interact with the following users: ferret, Sergecross, and SummerPhDv2.0. *I will not participate in the "List of music considered the worst" discussion. *I have made some edits in the past completely unrelated to this, and would like to continue to do so.

Decline reason:

As demonstrated below, the block is clearly appropriate. Yamla (talk) 11:50, 10 August 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.

unblock discussion and conditions

Well, it's good you acknowledge the reasons for your block. But you will need to describe convincingly what you will do instead. Pro-tip: If you are angry or frustrated, step away from the computer until you are not angry. Please and thank you go a long way toward setting your own mood and that of those around you. I suppose you have already been told about WP:42. I saw one huge reversion of your work for unsourced changes. You need to learn to let go of things when you cannot convince others of the correctness of your position. You also need to not make specious arguments. I guess we do not have a formal WP:TBAN for Sgt Pepper, but you might want to drop the stick. Hope this helps.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, Rjrya395, your unblock request attacks another editor. Why did you think that was a good idea? Let me just give you a broad hint here that if your response embodies the assumption that it was anything other than a very very bad idea indeed, you need to re-think it. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not an attack. I was just pointing out an example of that user's tendency to go overboard with his undoing spree. This was mot me shifting the blame or doing a whataboutism, but I'm sorry that it came off that way, which is why I deleted it. Rjrya395 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. Hint: "Ooops, sorry" may work in a way "that wasn't an attack" plainly will not. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YOU KNOW WHAT? FUCK THIS! I WAS WILLING TO DROP OUT OF THE SGT. PEPPER'S DISCUSSION AND CONTINUE EDITING, BUT THANK YOU SHOWING ME THAT ALL YOU BIG NAME ACCOUNTS CARE ABOUT IS GETTING YOUR ASSES KISSED! SO THIS GUY WHO HAVE BEEN TROLLING WIKIPEDIA FOR ALMOST A DECADE MOSTLY LIKELY ADDED A CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED ALBUM TO THE LIST OF MUSIC CONSIDERED THE WORST AND IT'S BEEN PROVEN THAT HE HAD CREATED TWO ACCOUNTS ARGUING IN FAVOR OF THAT ALBUM INCLUSION? AND FOR NO GODDAMN REASON OTHER THAT THAN THAT ARTICLE BARELY GETS ANY TRAFFIC, MEANING THAT ONLY A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THIS BLUNDER, THAT ALBUM IS STILL FUCKING ON? FUCK THAT!!! THIS USER WAS RUDE TO SERGECROSS73!!!!!!!!!!! Rjrya395 (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked to avoid any further personal attacks. This leaves you with WP:UTRS. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]