User talk:Soccermeko

Hello, Soccermeko! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome To My Talk Page

Questions = if you have a question, title your comment "question"
Complaints = please name your title complaints
Pictures = if you have a problem about pictures, title the subject the name of the picture
Unsigned Signatures = unsigned signature will be deleted
Deleting my things = if you deleted my thing, then you will be report no matter who you are

Userpage

I saw you blanked your userpage. Do you want to have it deleted? In that case, you can stick {{db-g7}} to it and someone will deleted it. Punkmorten 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Article Recreation

Unlike the other mixtapes, Speak My Mind (album) cites some sources - although it's not that much different when it was deleted here. It might get deleted again. Anyway, the reason mixtapes generally aren't notable is because they're just track lists and not much can be said about them. You can go to deletion review if you want it restored. I hope all of this doesn't discourage you from editing or anything. Spellcast (talk) 07:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InDepenDance Day

Why does this page need to be protected? Please see WP:Protect for reasons why we protect pages. A dmrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you recreate a page, you have to address the concerns for it being deleted. The review site doesn't actually have a review. Also, 2 of the 3 singles aren't from the tape. You have to cite sources to show it's received significant coverage in reliable sources. See the Dedication 2 mixtape for example, that has several reviews and info. If you want to recreate it, you have to take it to deletion review. Continually recreating it like that will lead to a block. Spellcast (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Nicole Wray

"I'm Lookin'", "Borrowed Time", and "Dear Father" are way more of contemporary R&B, and Nicole's overall music is far from being as soulful and funky as Curtis Mayfield's or Marvin Gaye's, so please stop retrieving inaccurate genres. Also, genres should not be capitalised. Thank you. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I've replied to your message on Talk:InDepenDance Day above. Also, see WP:NPA - threats like these aren't acceptable, thanks. Spellcast (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InDepenDance Day

Please recreate so i can fix. Soccermeko (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will restore it to your user space. Please improve it there and do NOT move it to mainspace until an administrator has approved it. It will be at: User:Soccermeko/InDepenDance Day. Please familiarize yourself with the editor concerns as described at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Wray Starring in InDepenDance Day; Vol.1 The Takeover. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have editted it. please tell others Soccermeko (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at it, and marked several maintenance concerns. Some of the marks are invisible comments; (can only be viewed in edit mode). You may want to address these concerns. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked unblock declines

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).

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

Request reason:

Alright this has gone far enough. The sockpuppet with me is JosephP89. But I still would like to request being unblock. I promise not to create another sockpuppet again. But all the other users had nothing to do with it. They just tried to be a end to you all putting false information about Nicole Wray. But if you unblock, I will try to make everything write and back to normal.

Decline reason:

I agree, it has gone far enough. You have attempted to edit via numerous anonymous IP addresses and numerous alternate accounts since being blocked. I see no evidence that you have been reformed recently. If you stay away from editing at ALL for some time, you may have a case that you are reformed. However, I see no evidence of that yet, given the recency of these sockpuppet problems. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:29, 9 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I don't care. No one care about Wikipedia. You try to contribute but they reply by adding false information and lies. And if the block isn't undone then it really would be the crappess site ever made. Because you got stupid users who think they know everything. Soccermeko (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't appear to be a request for unblocking, just some insults. Please, only use the unblock template if you are explaining a clear, valid reason to be unblocked. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:21, 9 April 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).

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

Request reason:

You try to contribute but they reply by adding false information and lies. Because you got stupid users who think they know everything. However I am still requesting a unblock because I sick and tired of everyone vandalizing and spreading false information about Nicole Wray including User: Kww, User: Kurt Shaped Box, and Hello Control. Soccermeko (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Attacking other users, and refusing to admit to your own rampant violation of the rules, especially abusive use of multiple accounts and continuing to edit anonymously via IP address while under a block does not show a good-faith desire on your part to be a positive contributor. I suggest you take an extended break and avoid editing Wikipedia at all for some time at length. If you do so, your request to return to editing will be taken much more seriously. Your continuous and non-stop attempts to avoid your initial block are why you are not allowed to edit. Abide by the block, take some time off, and THEN apply for an unblock. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:07, 9 April 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.

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm trying to add the right information to the Nicole Wray page.Soccermeko (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for your block, which is that you are a confirmed abusive sockpuppeteer, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Soccermeko. — Yamla (talk) 16:28, 11 April 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.

Do not want following people to jugde this block. Do to mistreatment. They do not know how to be reasonable and vandalize me or every page that I have edited.

FisherQueen
Hello Control
Jayron32
Kurt Shaped Box
Kww
Mdmmurresz
Spellcast

Soccermeko (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks will not be tolerated here. See WP:NPA. Any more and your page will be protected indefinitely. --Yamla (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all Yamla, I attacked no one, they attacked me. That is one thing you to get straight. And I had address everything about the case, so you need to stop bringing it up. Second of all, the list of people who attacked me are also the same people who vandalize pages and put the blame on other members. You think you know but just because it's there doesn't mean it's true. Listen and listen good, Deenaharp, leofan, and whoever else are not sockpuppets of me and what is worst is we did not get a chance to prove because they block everyone who tries. On top of that, anyone who editted the Nicole Wray or Yolanda Johnson page would be automatically block anyway, and be blamed as a sockpuppet of Soccermeko. I am demanding that you reconsider your post. Soccermeko (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you stop looking, and listen, you would realize the truth and see that the following has been done.

Blocking of innocent users
Vandalism on pages
Any user (other the users listed up top) who edits the Nicole Wray on Yolanda page, would be blocked
Blaming Soccermeko for untrue statements
Closing the case before, I(Soccermeko) had a say so in it
Not listening to any but themselves
Reverting edits that have been source or cited

All of this is true and no of it is wrong. Now some of those users will come and try to take this information down because they know that I am correct, if not they will say something that sounds right but isn't and redirect you to the Wikipedian rules when it doesn't even say that. If you haven't realize yet, all those members have been involve in every deletion process page that I have made. Soccermeko (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of vandalism. That is a serious accusation, so I demand the opportunity to defend myself. Post one diff of my vandalism of anything, bearing in mind that restoring declined unblocks is not vandalism. That you are accused of misdeeds is not a license to accuse me falsely. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

Please refrain from any further blanking of unblock declines. --Yamla (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Eyes Better Not Wander Video Shot.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Eyes Better Not Wander Video Shot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:N51.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:N51.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Nicole Girlfriend Video Shot.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nicole Girlfriend Video Shot.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Nicole Wray I Can't See.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Nicole Wray I Can't See.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soccermeko for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. SummerPhD (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nicole Wray

Template:Nicole Wray has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Encore Collection

The article Encore Collection has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM; "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SWV - Best of SWV.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SWV - Best of SWV.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SWV - Greatest Hits.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SWV - Greatest Hits.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:SWV - The Encore Collection.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SWV - The Encore Collection.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]