User talk:Musicfandom

Welcome!
Hello, Musicfandom, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quinton Feldberg (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There were significant WP:COPYRIGHT problems with your edits and significant problems with including WP:NLT and confirmed violations of WP:SOCK (which means, I'm afraid, you need to address this inappropriate behaviour, too). --Yamla (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

HI. Don't think I did anything wrong on Copyright. Someone deleted a page ("Meresha") for copyright violation by mistake. Page they quoted used Wikipedia. Please take a look. My few edits have always been from official sources I found. I include links. Please let me know if I did any wrong so I can learn. What problems are there with my dad? Not sure I understand.

The content was flagged as being a copyright violation from this page. That page notes that the source is Wikipedia, so it is reasonable to assert it is impossible for this to be a copyright violation. Without comment on anything else, I believe Musicfandom is correct in their claim there was no violation of WP:COPYRIGHT here. Although an article was deleted on that basis, I believe the basis is false. The reviewing admin is invited to make their own determination, but that is mine. Musicfandom, if you are indeed unblocked, you may want to make use of WP:REFUND to get that article undeleted. --Yamla (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've seen the page (and the subject's own website, which had the same content) without the "Wikipedia" tag; it changed its appearance after a conversation in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel. Nonetheless I agree with Yamla that the Wikipedia article likely was not a copyright violation, but that's based on the timing of the original page, not on the subsequent tagging. That IRC conversation also included very heavy doses of legal threats. I also have some doubts about the !That's my dad" explanation given NARAS' official-sounding declarations. Huon (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Am I still blocked?

Hello? Is anyone there?


 * DUDE! I dealt with you first time around. Gimme a break. Dude/dad/coworker/talking dog/whatever. Yes we are still here. Yes, you will stay blocked for now. Glad to see you calmed down and toned it down to a level where the WP:REFUND issue can be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

I'm going to refund Meresha as I had doubts the first time around. If objections arise, can redelete and trout me.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC) PS Speaking of LEGAL issues. You need to attribute the Wikipedia content on the subject's own website. It appears that is the copyvio.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * reviewed Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive. DUDE, if OfficialPankajPatidar is your uncle or something, please tell me now.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Must request your consideration re this discussion.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What am I blocked for? I don't understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs)


 * WP:sockpuppetry- abusing multiple accounts. Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

How did I abuse multiple accounts? I've made a few edits over the years based on sources. Which post violated rules? Sorry if I did something wrong, but I don't know what. Is there anything I can do? Happy to learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs)

I was the most recent person to delete the page Meresha and the reason I did so is because it's unattributed copying of a deleted version of the article. I did that deletion before I discovered that the person who created it had been blocked for sockpuppetry, so G5 would actually have been a better deletion criterion (created by a banned or blocked user [OfficialPankajPatidar] in violation of their block). The second deletion deleted the page as being a copyvio of this page, but that page attributes Wikipedia, so it was technically not a G12 either, but that version also qualified for deletion as G5, as it was created by User:Juniorcardenas30, who is tagged as being a sock of User:Di1977. The first deletion was G5, as the page was created by User: Ersepeac, who is tagged as being a sockpuppet of User:OfficialPankajPatidar. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

What does that have to do with me? There was no Copyright violation. Right? Is that why I am blocked? For pointing it out?

Read since about the other things you posted Dianaa. G5 would not apply (nor G12 obviously) since G5 "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block. .. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted will not qualify under this criterion." As far as I can tell none of the G5 conditions apply. Do I understand correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs)
 * Where did you get a copy of the deleted article? If you didn't write it, it's a copyright violation (speedy deletion criterion G12) for you to copy it without attribution to the original author. If you did, it's G5 - posted in violation of a block or ban. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dianaa. Not sure what you mean? I do not know what you deleted in your "3rd deletion". I have nothing to do with it and don't have access to that info. No one who was blocked could publish it, so G5 would not normally apply anyway. Also not sure how G12 would apply to a Wikipedia article originally written on Wikipedia. A copyright owner can't usually infringe on their own copyright?

What I have said is that the "2nd deletion" from Dec. 28 was wrong and should be fixed. Neither G12 nor G5 applied then obviously. All admins who looked at this recently agreed the G12 deletion was a mistake. No admin, though, seems to want to fix that mistake and instead seem mainly focused on criticizing and blocking people who pointed it out. I have focused so far in Wikipedia on editing music-related pieces that needed updating or more credible sources. Would like to continue that. I can contribute on artists I am a fan of like Dua Lipa, Selena Gomez, Halsey, Daya, Demi Lovato, Meresha and Verité. I saw that someone deleted one of those articles for a fake reason and tried to fix it. That should be in Wikipedia's interest. Instead I am writing here and blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, I made a mistake. You did not create the version of the article that I deleted, but you did edit the version of the article that was deleted on December 28, 2017. You did not copy material from the deleted versions; I made a mistake when I said that. Sorry. Let's go over this again:
 * The article was initially created on January 1, 2017 by user:Ersepeac, who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of OfficialPankajPatidar. This version of the article was deleted as G5 on March 19, 2017.
 * An identical article was re-created on April 6, 2017 by User: Juniorcardenas30, who was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Di1977. It later was discovered that Di1977 is a sockpuppet of OfficialPankajPatidar. Juniorcardenas30 had 19 edits to this version of the article, and you had 65.  This version was deleted as G12, but the page assumed to be the source is actually a Wikipedia mirror, so copyvio was not a correct deletion criterion. But G5 does apply, since Juniorcardenas30 is a sock of OfficialPankajPatidar. This version of the article was deleted on December 28, 2017.
 * A third identical article was created on February 21, 2018 by user: Ftrbnd. I deleted the article as being an unattributed copy if the deleted article, but when I later discovered the article's history, I realized it was created by yet another sock of OfficialPankajPatidar and blocked the user on that basis. You did not have any edits to that iteration of the article. You were blocked by a checkuser, so only a checkuser can unblock you. Ordinary administrators are not permitted to undo checkuser blocks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * .--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not sure, but I don't think you can move it to draft space, as it was deleted as G5. For proper attribution to take place, all versions would have to be restored. I don't see that happening. A new version would have to be created I think. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Well, I think that about wraps it up.--Dloh cier ekim  (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Dianaa, Appreciate the time you took. I checked the links above. I am new to this, so don't understand all. Di1977 and Juniorcardenas30 were found NOT to be a sock of OfficialPankaj... (see below). G5 did not apply. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/OfficialPankajPatidar/Archive#05_January_2018 This was the same time it looks like I was blocked for reasons still not clear to me. The evidence above suggests again that the Dec 28, 2017 deletion was done wrongly violating Wikipedia rules as mentioned before. Neither G12 nor G5 applied. Wouldn't the right thing be to fix this? I could not find a similar sock puppet investigation link for Ftrbnd. Is there one or was it just blocked until investigated? No idea of the background on that Happy to contribute to sort out, and get back to contributing to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts. Sorry, I didn't look at the sockpuppet report, but I see that you were blocked for different reasons than I originally assumed. The reason you were blocked is because there's technical checkuser evidence connecting you to User:NARAS. The original article was deleted as G5 and the other two versions were identical so in that sense all three qualify for G5. The second two are unattributed copies; that's a violation of the terms of the CC-by-SA license. I blocked Ftrbnd myself and they are not listed on the sockpuppet report as it was an obvious sockpuppet. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the signing. I only ever edited in the encyclopedia before this.

Yeah. As I wrote above NARAS is my dad. He joined recently and I don't think has ever edited anything on the encyclopedia. As far as I understand, a sock puppet has to do something wrong to be considered such. I don't know what I did that was wrong. I tried to fix an obvious mistake (and keep failing). As far as I understand, there is no rule that says 1 account/household so I don't get that.

What do you mean the second article version was unattributed? Weren't there sources named in the article? I added some. Remember that at some point an admin put a banner at the top of the page with things to fix, and I tried to fix them. Tried to do it based on sources, which I remember adding.

As noted, don't understand how Wikipedia could violate Wikipedia's copyright. The original author owns no copyright on Wikipedia. Right? The second it is written, it is part of Wikipedia's rights. It literally is a Wikipedia right to copy it. Right? Maybe I should read more on this?

If there were dozens of edits made (you noted at least 84 above, more by others?), the articles could not have been identical. I don't have access to compare, but am happy to do that if I can somehow see them.

G5 "applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and THAT HAVE NO SUBSTANTIAL EDITS BY OTHERS". The second article was not created by a banned or blocked user (at that time), and there were at least 84 edits (maybe more?). So G5 does not apply, it seems. Think the page was also translated into other languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Criteria

About 20% of the sources on the simple wikipedia version of Meresha's page are recent, so it suggests substantial changes were made. Found this version recently. The layout looks different than the original Meresha page too.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meresha

Sorry to write so much, and don't want to upset anyone, but think what happened was and is wrong. Hope it gets fixed and we can all move on to better things. Musicfandom (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The copyright issue that led to the second deletion is fixable by providing appropriate attribution (the original author does own the copyright though the content is released under a free license that allows re-use under certain conditions; those conditions were not met here, meaning that the re-use did not comply with the license and thus violates copyright). Whether the article is worth having is debatable; I'd likely nominate it for a deletion discussion on grounds of notabillity if it were undeleted. Huon (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I didn't say that all three versions were identical; I said that all three versions were identical when they were first created. There were no substantial edits by others; there were some substantial edits were made by the sockpuppets, but not by others. Your edits consisted of things like adding wikilinks and external links. Perhaps G5 does not apply to the second two versions, but the point is moot, because neither of those versions were deleted as G5; both were deleted as being copyright violations. While Wikipedia's license does allow copying, copied material must be acknowledged as such. That's the "attribution" part of our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Reusing Wikipedia content covers this point. Huon is correct that the attribution problem can be retroactively fixed. However, the original G5 cannot. A new article would have to be created from scratch. Material added to Simple Wikipedia by the sockpuppet Juniorcardenas30 does nothing to change my mind about the status of the deleted article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - probably would be easiest be to fix some attribution retroactively. Not sure what exactly (source Wikipedia?), but maybe you can help. Still don't get why Wikipedia needs to license Wikipedia, but ok. Wikipedia does not have to license the same material from an author more than 1 time. Right? There was work done by a number of volunteer editors that would be wiped out without what seems like a strong reason, including mine.

Not sure I know enough to make an article from scratch myself, but can try if I get help. Can't do if blocked though. If you unblock me, I can get started during the next week. As far as I understand notability, there needs to be "Significant coverage" and "at least one secondary source". "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."

There is tons of that if you Google Meresha, from some of the most reputable sources in the field; including being chosen as one of the top 20 albums in the world by industry standard AllMusic (which is pretty notable for an Indie). Not sure many Indies are more notable. Here's a few articles from my search just now. Isn't this notable?

https://www.allmusic.com/year-in-review/2017/favorite-pop

https://www.allmusic.com/album/enter-the-dreamland-mw0003065783

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/meresha-mn0003386569/biography

http://thingstodo.palmbeachpost.com/event/mereshamay-6-201758b8927bf0b4e

https://www.billboard.com/music/meresha

https://www.billboard.com/charts/heatseekers-albums/2017-07-15

https://www.sunfest.com/blog/2017-girl-talk-part-iii

https://music.allaccess.com/an-interview-with-rising-singer-songwriter-meresha-on-her-early-start-and-her-new-revolution/

https://indiemusicmonday.com/featured-artist-interview-meresha/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/entertainment/acts-you-crazy-miss-this-weekend-sunfest/4Ep6RX0Ru3fYrxPglKhOHK/

http://www.tastetv.com/tag/meresha/

https://hobmusicforward.org/2017/01/25/bdth-alumni-spotlight-meresha/

https://www.nextbigsound.com/charts/predictions/2016-12-16/7

https://celebmix.com/discover-meresha-releases-music-video-for-enter-the-dreamland/

http://topplaylists.es/2018/01/21/nuevos-talentos-descubrimos-a-meresha-y-su-alien-pop/

http://digitaltourbus.com/features/meresha-dream-tour/

http://topplaylists.es/2018/01/21/nuevos-talentos-descubrimos-a-meresha-y-su-alien-pop/

http://membrainllc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/STORM-No-42-INT-PAGES-1.pdf

https://drunkenmermaid.me/2015/11/01/viva-la-new-revolution-the-amazing-meresha-is-here/

http://essentiallypop.com/epop/2016/07/meresha-my-love-has-come/

https://shutter16mag2011.wordpress.com/2015/10/08/an-introduction-to-meresha-alienesque-artist-on-reverbnation/

https://writeclickcooklisten.blogspot.com/2016/02/artists-cookbook-whats-cooking-with.html

http://milkcrater.com/2016/02/01/meresha-my-love-has-come/

http://www.electronicnorth.co.uk/new-music-meresha-enter-the-dreamland/

https://drunkenmermaid.me/2015/11/01/viva-la-new-revolution-the-amazing-meresha-is-here/

https://www.davesmithinstruments.com/artists/

https://www.thesecretsoftheirsuccess.com/enter-dreamland-ep-by-meresha/

http://indieminded.com/2014/09/indie-minded-interview-meresha/

https://musicbrainz.org/artist/e580b493-7ea8-4f62-9e4a-22318909957a

Musicfandom (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Found notability criteria for musicians. Looks like these 5 may be satisfied based on the above. 1 is required.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. (see above)

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. (Billboard Heat-seeker)

3. Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. (see SunFest coverage)

8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. (MTVu, AllMusic)

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. (MTV, national radio) Musicfandom (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion above.

What are next steps here?

Wanted to work on the article as Dianaa suggested, but found I am still blocked. Should I reapply for an unblock?

Dlohcierekim mentioned a WP:REFUND process, but could not find a link for an open case. The easiest step might be for Slackr to simply restore the December version of the page (as Wikipedia rules would suggest) and have editors work from that basis as appropriate.

Think what we established above is:

1. The original article was on a clearly notable topic and should rightfully be covered on Wikipedia (passes up to 5 tests of Notability).

2. The deletion of the article in December was an admin mistake. Neither G12 nor G5 applied. There was no Copyright Infringement of an external source. (Various admins confirmed). Might need to note that an earlier Wikipedia version was the source for the December version.

3. I was wrongly accused of being a sock puppet and blocked after noting an admin made a mistake. Probably a misunderstanding by the admins involved rather than cyberbullying or retaliation. (investigation cleared me, and no one could name anything I did wrong).

4. As with other articles, I edited things a banner from an admin suggested. As far as I know all my edits were done in a proper way. No one showed counter-evidence. Would like to return to editing when time allows and develop my skills further.

Musicfandom (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"The vision of Wikipedia is that "every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Right now, I can't." Remember that editing here is a PRIVILEGE, not a right, and it can be revoked if evidence suggests that you are abusing that privilege. ToThAc (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Where did everyone go? Musicfandom (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Anyone there? Musicfandom (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you are aware, but the block is a checkuser block, meaning it can only be reviewed and lifted by a user that has the checkuser power. They are limited in number, and have lives outside of Wikipedia, please be patient. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tone it down. Comparing wikipedia to a brutal dictatorship like North Korea, and making demands to see material covered by the privacy policy aren't going to result in an unblock. Nor will going off on a tangent about an article. Having read both this talk page, and NARAS - you write remarkably similarly to NARAS. I really don't buy the 'its my dad' excuse any more than some other admins above. As such, I will leave this request for another uninvolved admin to review. I would strongly suggest reading the Guide to appealing blocks. SQL Query me!  21:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I've been blocked for most of this year. Seems I was blocked because I asked an admin to fix a mistake, which other admins have since confirmed was a mistake after checking the facts. Doesn't seem right. There would have been no discussion, nor any reason to block me, if the admin hadn't made the mistake, or fixed it when it was pointed out. Musicfandom (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Yamla - I am not sure what you are asking me. This feels like retaliation by admins for having a mistake pointed out. The admins who reviewed agreed now that an admin made a mistake, hence this whole discussion only exists because of that admin mistake. Why am I the person who gets punished so massively for that with a lifetime ban? For what exactly? A list of other admins made wrong assumptions above. I can detail that if you want. Is it surprising that admins disappear after it is clear they made a mistake? Maybe not, but Wikipedia should not tolerate such bullying of less experienced editors, and should not allow that the person was bullied - me - be additionally punished because admins can't admit mistakes. No one has claimed with any hint of evidence that I did anything wrong in editing any Wikipedia encyclopedia page, ever. Is the situation created by the admin's mistake complex? Yes - but how can I be punished for that?

What exactly do you want me to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs)
 * I want you to do this: "You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request." There's no point posting the same unblock request that totally failed to convince all of the previous people to act on it. It's just adding needlessly to the backlog. I will note that you've claimed you were wrongly accused of violating WP:SOCK. This is not quite true. is a confirmed violation of WP:SOCK. It is true that no overlap between this account and  was established, however. Note that I will not respond further. You are welcome to request an unblock, but you are not welcome to simply repost the same old request that failed to convince people. I can't tell you what would convince people, only demonstrate that you have so far failed to convince anyone to take action. --Yamla (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Yamla. I will write a new block review when time allows, though the previous ones should have sufficed in my view. Feel free to ignore the following thoughts if you do not have time. I do hope you are on the positive side of Wikipedia, and not the very dark side I have experienced. I will reword in the block review.

- - -

It reflects poorly on Wikipedia that admins that make mistakes are silent, hiding being fake identities, instead of trying to rectify them. Not sure why I am punished for this.

Perhaps the Wikipedia admin identities should be public to rebuild public trust? There is no mechanism to report cyberbullying by admins as far as I can see.

This may be a benchmark case of aggressive cyberbullying by male-dominated admins as mentioned in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia

and various critiques of Wikipedia admin culture in the press (for example:)

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/

https://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2344-5-ugly-realities-wikipedia-i-learned-as-admin.html

Instead of fixing an admin mistake, a hoard of admins attacked me and my family.

Not one of the admins had the moral courage to fix the original admin mistake, or even try. In 6 months. This seems deeply dishonest.

In sum, it feels like a total failure of Wikipedia aspirations, mission, vision, rules and structures.

I, and my family, have not only felt brutally harassed by various admins; we have in fact been pummeled to near-death in cyber terms. At the moment, I am "dead", not able to edit as in the past years. I have only ever made positive edits to the Wikipedia encyclopedia, yet have been punished for speaking the truth.

For trying to fix an admin mistake I have suffered great trauma and now have severe PTSD symptoms, even if you could remove the "P-Post" part of that abbreviation. The wrong actions of admins have caused me significant damage.

This Wikipedia cyberbullying culture is scary, and can not be tolerated if Wikipedia is to survive and be trusted.

There is no "confirmed violation" of "Sock". After reporting an admin mistake, I was apparently weirdly investigated of being a sock of Pankaj.... Why did that misguided investigation happen, instead of focusing on fixing the mistake? Weird, no? Despite the investigation proving my innocence, I was blocked. It seems as retaliation for pointing out an admin mistake. Other admins above kept holding "Pankaj..." against me above, despite this false claim being groundless. Wrongly continuing to publish my blockage as related to Pankaj... seems to be the core sin here. It is wrong.

As I have written above, the explanation of the block has no merit. None. A family (or person) can have an infinite number of Wikipedia accounts by Wikipedia rules, as you undoubtedly know. Having 2 accounts in a household does not come close to matching the evidentiary minimum of claiming someone is a "sock". Trying to fix an admin mistake is not "abusing multiple accounts" as I have been accused, unless you believe that Wikipedia's core mission is to protect admins from admitting mistakes. If you believe that, Wikipedia has no future.