User talk:Miss Show Business

December 2019

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evedentlyuser. Thank you. 2402:1980:8253:7862:5238:51A3:CB71:DE3 (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just made this account. I haven't had a Wikipedia account in years. Don't know how there's any evidence I have multiple accounts... Miss Show Business (talk) 06:16, 23 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Falsely accused of sock puppetry. I have no relation or connection to the other accused account. I also cited a reliable source in the edit that was used to accuse me of this, therefore my edit is not WP:DE. I have only one account under my email address and ISP.

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for disruptive editing. If you are not a sockpuppet, you will need to explain why you were making the exact same edit as other sockpuppets did, as per the SPI(linked to above). A simple denial is not sufficient in sockpuppetry cases, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 23 December 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.

How is making the same edit as a sock puppet prove I am that person's sock puppet account? So by that logic, it's impossible for me to simply have the same point of view as that same person who was accused of sock puppetry? I am not connected to this account in any way, shape, or form. Can't you compare my IP to the sock puppet's? This is ridiculous. I am being affected by WP:COLLATERAL. You cannot accuse me of being a sock puppet with absolutely no verifiable proof (like a matching IP address) that I am one. I don't know how else I could "prove" I'm not a sock puppet. This is just reminding me of all of the reasons why I chose to have my previous Wikipedia account deleted many, many years ago. I wish to have this reviewed by another administrator. Miss Show Business (talk) 11:27, 23 December 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).

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

Request reason:

Falsely accused of sock puppetry. I have no relation or connection to the other accused account. Admins have not supplied enough sufficient evidence to justify my block.

Decline reason:

You've already been told that a simple denial is insufficient. Yamla (talk) 11:50, 23 December 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.

Again, what am I supposed to do to prove my innocence when I am being given no opportunity to? I have NO relation to the other account. Someone with checkuser privileges should check my IP because I am NOT that sockpuppet. I haven't used Wikipedia in YEARS. Miss Show Business (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are being given all the opportunity you need, right here. It's simply not true that there's no relation to the other account. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evedentlyuser/Archive. You need to address the points raised there, and there's nothing stopping you from doing so. --Yamla (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed that point. Those sockpuppets were all from May. The edit I made is 7 months later... I also cited a reliable source when I made the edit I made. I don't see ANY of those sockpuppets citing a reliable source at all. Just because I make a similar edit / share a viewpoint with a different account that is a proven sockpuppet, ≠ I am that person's sockpuppet account. Unless you have evidence I have a matching IP address or that I'm using a proxy, you have zero evidence that I am in any way connected to that account aside from the fact that I made a similar edit that they did. All over a MUSIC GENRE! Miss Show Business (talk) 16:12, 23 December 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).

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

Request reason:

More evidence supports that I am not the sockpuppet account than evidence that I am does. Consider the following: The sockpuppet accounts did not cite reliable sources, therefore it was repeated disruptive editing. I cited a reliable source and even exclaimed as such in the editing comments. This does not make my editing disruptive, which is the basis for blocking multiple accounts / sockpuppet accounts. WP: BLOCK says strictly that blocking is only used to prevent disruption on Wikipedia. Citing a reliable source is not disruption. Also, my only other two Wikipedia edits that I made before the block, were not disruptive, either. A similar edit than mine was made on the page I edited, Can't Get You Out of My Head (Kylie Minogue song), where simply a genre was added and a reliable source was also added. There has been no retaliation toward this user, no accusations of sockpuppetry, etc. The sockpuppet accounts cited in the investigation page were investigated 7 months ago. I created my account on December 22nd. No other sockpuppet accounts for this user were investigated in 7 months. My username is completely unique, while the sockpuppet accounts almost all have variations of the same username. Miss Show Business (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not fooling anyone. You have demonstrated neither the emotional nor intellectual maturity required to edit here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:13, 28 December 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.

Unblocked

I have unblocked this account per the CheckUser evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deathismetal14. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A heads up to the blocking admin, Oshwah.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23, for letting me know. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

You maintained your innocence from the beginning, despite being trapped in an astronomical set of unfortunate coincidences. However, you persevered with your convictions towards the truth and the greater good of the project.

The system truly did fail you, but hopefully we can all focus on the positive of having you back as an editor to finally correct those institutional errors for others in the future.

Glad to have you back! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Miss Show Business. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "Dance music and general dancing music."

Hi. Do you mind to take a look at talk page? Feel free to comment. 183.171.123.76 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Britney movement

Hi there Miss Show Business! I don't believe we've directly spoken. I'm KyleJoan. Pleased to make your acquaintance! I believe I gave a sufficient explanation as to why I reverted your additions, but I also wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:Recentism, which advises against editing with an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It might be worth a read. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 06:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but isn't there a way we can add some of Spears's accusations, perhaps in less words? In my view, they are the most important addition to that article, as it basically fully confirms the suspicions on which the movement was started. Miss Show Business (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't her assertion that she would like the conservatorship to end without any evaluation be the most important? That aside, Spears's statement does not make the suspicions facts. If they were, reliable sources would have said that the conservatorship team was guilty of the allegations, which they did not do. Placing undue weight on Spears's allegations by documenting them on a large scale to lead readers to believe that the suspicions on which the movement was started has been fully confirmed would be inappropriate. This topic is too contentious to let even the littlest amount of intuition about whether the allegations are true seep in and affect the content we select to include. Let's instead follow the sources and let the process play out. KyleJoan^talk 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Caribbean Blue, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You need to re-read Template:Infobox song. It does not say to omit songs if they don't have an article. It says to add a link only if one exists. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of my apparent misreading; I recall many years ago there being a consensus on several artists' singles chronologies to only link singles with written articles on the pages of the singles, and the artists discography page would display all of their singles, article or not. With the way the Infobox is setup, it seems to allow a continuous flow of all of an artists released singles or albums. Adding songs or albums with no articles seems to disrupt the intended flow of the Infobox. Make no mistake about the age of my account, I deleted an old account here years ago and recall that consensus being established. Miss Show Business (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]