User talk:TrackerMercurial136

Older warnings and/or other comments on this page have been removed, but are still viewable in the page history.

Contentious edits

Firstly, please stop removing recording years or dates from infoboxes without explaining why, as you did at Whitney Houston (album). Saying "shortened" is not a reason. These are almost always contentious changes. There is nothing in the prose to suggest or support Houston only recording the album in 1984. If you disagree with this, please propose your changes on the talk page per WP:BRD. Now, regarding your edit on Everything She Wants, you retained the American date and claimed the other is unsourced. Right, and where is the source for the American date then? You should also not be changing the date format to mdy on a British artist's article. The British release date in December 1984 should be retained as we generally only list the first date of release per Template:Infobox song#released. If you have an issue with unsourced release dates, place a citation needed tag, but don't remove them entirely when they've been in place for years and as the infobox needs a year there. Thank you. Ss112 23:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at The Collection (Michael Jackson album), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ss112 00:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Merry Christmas (Mariah Carey album). Ss112 03:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly if I cited a source for my edit aka the album release date. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 04:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except we list the first release date in the infobox. The European release date was sourced in the release history in the body of the article; perhaps you should be more thorough and check before you make edits like this in future, but given your straight-up blanking in the past, I doubt it will happen. Your constant contrariness and contentious changes are disruptive, and you are being reported. If you continue disputing that "Childhood" is a double A-side with "Scream" despite not having consensus per WP:BRD coupled with obvious evidence like the fact that "Childhood" is literally credited on the cover art with Scream, I will take this further and report you to an administrator directly or at ANI. So stop. Ss112 15:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I really urge you, if you consider yourself a fan of Michael Jackson, to do your own research by simply Googling "double A-side Scream Childhood". There are countless sources out there that mention this easily verifiable fact. Here's just one industry mention in Billboard from 1995, the year of the single's release, of it being a double A-side: [1]. Know what you're talking about before continuing to remove things, because you honestly have no idea. Ss112 15:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small text in infoboxes

Please do not add small text to infoboxes per MOS:SMALLTEXT. We don't link well-known cities or places in the infobox per Template:Infobox album#studio. Also, you are still shortening years in wikitables, like on Heal the World. Again, space is not limited in a wide wikitable column. It is unnecessary, so please stop doing this. Thanks. Ss112 00:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request <--- Important

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).

TrackerMercurial136 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am blocked because someone thought I was a user named KillerGho$t due to me and that person supposedly having similar editing styles even though there aren't that many editing styles. That person used profanity in their edits in which I checked in their contributions history and I never did and never will. I also cite sources for most of my edits that require it, that person didn't. For some edits I don't source, I put an explanation on why I didn't or because it didn't need it. In conclusion, please unblock me because I'm definitely not affiliated with that KillerGho$t person. TrackerMercurial136 (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence of the use of multiple accounts, so you will need to address this; it is not just similar editing styles. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 27 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 do I address this then, 331dot? You tell me to address this but you don't even give an explanation how... Any help? Deepfriedokra

This issue can be fixed quick but no one wants to cooperate. Also, could I see the technical evidence since you supposedly say there is?

UTRS

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

TrackerMercurial136 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #28257 was submitted on 2019-12-26 20:59:15. This review is now closed.

-- Deep fried okra 00:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked 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).

TrackerMercurial136 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been blocked because I was supposedly under the same IP as KillerGho$t and so they assumed I'm a sockpuppet even though I have no connections with that person. Also, someone tried to hack me a while back and they tried to find my location by using my online IP and they found someone in Rhode Island with the same IP as me even though it wasn't me. So that shows that just because I have a similar ip, doesn't mean I'm a sockpuppet. Also, there's no proof that I'm a sockpuppet of KillerGho$t. You guys just assumed I'm a sockpuppet because of 1. I go on the same article pages 2. I have a similar editing style and 3. I supposedly am on the same ip as KillerGho$t according to your "technical" information even though I'm not.

Decline reason:

The technical evidence is more than just the IP address. We know it's you, there's no doubt about this. Yamla (talk) 12:31, 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.