Proof of Case
August 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nicki Minaj discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Nicki Minaj discography was changed by Proof of Case (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2011-08-02T02:44:26+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011 edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Nicki Minaj discography, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.
- Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
- ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Nicki Minaj discography was changed by Proof of Case (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.973898 on 2011-08-04T22:45:45+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Nicki disco edit
Just so you know, I had no problem with the US being first, it was adding bubbling under Hot 100 and calling "Check It Out" a single from Pink Friday, when consensus was reached that it wasn't, was why I reverted it. ℥nding·start 23:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring over unsourced material edit
When material is removed for lack of sourcing, you must add verifiable sources before restoring the material. You must add them. Not someone else. Not me. Not other editors. Not someday. You must add the sources, and you must do it before readding the material. See WP:BURDEN for details. Beyond that, your edit warring is getting extremely tireseome. Don't constantly readd material that other editors have removed.—Kww(talk) 14:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Unblock edit
Proof of Case (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was recently blocked bt User: KWW for a sockpuppetry case and would like to defend myself against these claims. First off, I am not a sockpuppet. My blocking actually came after I had gotten into a disagreement with User: KWW over bubbling under chart positions. I attempted to investigate the matter by going to the contributions of KWW to see if the matter was discussed before. However, on his talk User talk:KWW, in reply to another user he stated that he just felt it and decided to block me. I would really like to be looked under consideration, which I am positive will show that I am not a sockpuppet. Also, I am not a threat yo wikipedia policy. When I first started, I engaged in edit waring, however, if you look on User talk: Ending-start, you will see that I have tried to solve our problem with talk page communication. I am still new to wikipedia, however with proper guidance, I am sure thatI can become a great member. Again, I am sorry if there is some confusion, but in no shape or form am I a sockpuppet.--Proof of Case (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Confirmed by CheckUser as a block evading sock puppet of TrEeMaNsHoE (talk · contribs) –MuZemike 23:25, 10 August 2011 (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.
Proof of Case (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was recently blocked bt User: KWW for a sockpuppetry case and would like to defend myself against these claims. First off, I am not a sockpuppet. My blocking actually came after I had gotten into a disagreement with User: KWW over bubbling under chart positions. I attempted to investigate the matter by going to the contributions of KWW to see if the matter was discussed before. However, on his talk User talk:KWW, in reply to another user he stated that he just felt it and decided to block me. I would really like to be looked under consideration, which I am positive will show that I am not a sockpuppet. Also, I am not a threat yo wikipedia policy. When I first started, I engaged in edit waring, however, if you look on User talk: Ending-start, you will see that I have tried to solve our problem with talk page communication. I am still new to wikipedia, however with proper guidance, I am sure thatI can become a great member. Again, I am sorry if there is some confusion, but in no shape or form am I a sockpuppet. I resubmitted this as it seems as if my request wasnt looked at as the decline reason was that a check user confirmed me. Thanx, i guess --Proof of Case (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppets of banned users are not unblocked. Unblock requests must be submitted to ArbCom. —DoRD (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2011 (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.