User talk:ItHysteria

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is War[edit]

STOP reverting against consensus. I will block you if you continue. Use the talk page to raise your concerns. Ged UK 18:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use the talk page.--ItHysteria (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then don't revert the page again until the discussion has ended. Thanks. Ged UK 18:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Edge of the Earth, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the discussion.--ItHysteria (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. I will file a sockpuppetry case if I have to. 猛禽22 ^•• 02:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of the Earth[edit]

ItHysteria, I see you're continuing to reinstate the article despite multiple editors disagreeing with you. Just like GedUK warned you above, you must discuss controversial changes and get a consensus on a talk page before you make them. Current consensus is strongly against you, and when I pointed out that the most recent source you added is a non-working link you've continued to revert the redirect without addressing that. If you persist in reverting without obtaining consensus first you are going to get yourself blocked. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at This Is War. 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 believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Ged UK 17:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 seconds to mars[edit]

If you have sources on FIMI that show that 30 Seconds to Mars has charting singles, feel free to use them. The charts on acharts.us is specifically listed on WP:BADCHARTS, and is not the FIMI chart. The charts at italiancharts.com show that they have never had a charting single, even though they have had charting albums.

You also reinserted a completely bogus chart, the Argentina Top 100. Don't blindly revert things like this.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take Kww's advice about 'blindly reverting' seriously. If you resume edit-warring you'll be blocked again, for longer this time. Please use talk pages to discuss edits you disagree with. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Charts[edit]

If you are going to persist in adding the charting of Edge of the Earth on the Japanese charts, then please actually find a source that supports this statement. To date, the sources you have provided either do not work or simply make absolutely no mention of the single let alone its chart history. Perhaps you are attempting to fool people by providing sources in Japanese? Although far from accurate grammatically, a simple web-based translation program proves that Edge of the Earth or its chart history (or lack thereof) are not mentioned in the source you provide. All that source amounts to is a very brief and general biography of the band. Little is said about early singles or chart history. As such, the source does not support the statement and so cannot be used. As you have been warned above, do not persist in blindly reverting this, or you will be blocked. As for adding Tomo to the list of Gibson Players, he completely fails to meet the clearly stated notability criteria at the top of the page. He is not a "musician with [a] long career with a history of faithful Gibson use." Neither was his guitar unique nor did it (or will it) achieve any historical importance. Similarly, his use of the Gibson model has most certainly not contributed significantly to the popularization of that particular instrument. So, please stop adding Miličević to this article. He has been removed by numerous other editors showing a clear consensus that he is absolutely not notable enough to be included. Why don't you try contributing constructively? Nouse4aname (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another warning[edit]

You are repeatedly editing against consensus on This Is War. Do NOT do it again, or you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Ged UK 20:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Ged UK 21:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to edit against consensus. I just warned you not to continue, but you carried on. When your block expires, please use the article talk page, and if the consensus doesn't agree with you, accept it. Ged UK 21:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked[edit]

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria, and you are therefore blocked indefinitely.
If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm ItHysteria, I want to ask to all the Wikipedia users something. Before I didn't respect the Wikipedia criteria, but now I have learned (see some of my recent edits, I used the talk page and I contributed correctly), I'm not a vandal and I will not vandalize any more because I learned how to work. I have serious plans about the Wikipedia work. I want to contribute correctly. I would lead my interests (like 30 Seconds to Mars) at the FA because I want to contribute to something that I like to help others who have the same my interests. Please, take me seriously. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia and not be blocked. Help me. Best regards.

Decline reason:

As the notice above indicates, your current block is not for vandalism; it's for sockpuppetry. Since your unblock request doesn't address the reason you were blocked, I'm denying it. If you want to make another, please explain why we should unblock you despite your sockpuppetting. Olaf Davis (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I used many accounts for this; I didn't want the article was deleted, so I used multiples accounts to reach a consensus to keep it. At that time, I didn't know the Wikipedia criteria, but now I learned how to work and I understand why the article was deleted. As I said before I have serious plans about the Wikipedia work. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia and not be blocked. Please help me.

Decline reason:

This does not even address, let alone convince me, that you understand that your large-scale sockpuppetry is unacceptable and that you won't do it again. Sandstein 15:43, 28 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes, is true, but just because I wanted (and I want) to contribute to Wikipedia. See the edits of my accounts; everyone has edited to articles that interest me. Really, I understand. I want to contribute again, please. Take me seriously. Help me.

Decline reason:

The fact that your sockpuppets edited articles that interested you is wholly irrelevant. I am not convinced that you appreciate how vey unacceptable your behaviour has been. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:19, 28 August 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I said that I wanted to contribute and then I created various accounts. I promise now I respect all the Wikipedia criteria. I know I was wrong in the past, but now I'm changed; I learned how to work, and I want to work on Wikipedia. I will do everything to contribute to my interests. Please, give me a chance, I have seriously plans about Wikipedia. Please take me seriously. Help me.

Decline reason:

Sounds like you need a psychiatrist more than you need Wikipedia. Seriously, you still refuse to address the socking issue. Since you keep making these requests without showing that you really understand what you're doing wrong, I'm cutting off your talk page access. You can still make requests, but by email. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2010 (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.

Fair use rationale for File:Faces of Mars.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Faces of Mars.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]