User talk:Shamwow86

Hey guys, I'm all ears! Shamwow86 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for February has been published. March's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Coordinator nominations

Just to let you know, that canvassing is not allowed for elections or discussions as you did here and here. It would be fine to alert other editors that an election is going on, but you should not indicate that a editor specifically vote for you. Thanks and if you have any questions, let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk

I don't appreciate randomly reverting to an archived version of my talk for whatever reason. If you have a new question, bring it up in a new thread. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, just use the preview more :) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Election

Hey Shamwow86, where have people been saying that I'm done? I've never heard that. Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Old user box

I've noticed some old userboxes you had here and here. You might want to move them here since I've seen some admins go through old blocked accounts and wipe them clean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. If you want to keep those, you should move them to your userspace so it would be at User:Shamwow86/Solaris, for example. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inappropiate canvassing

Be advised that messages such 1 and 2 are rather blatant canvassing and will not be dealt with kindly in the future. People will evaluate you on your own merits, not on how hard you "campaign". Also, this message was rather obtuse; attempting to harass another user is not welcomed. I'd recommend that you stop, as all you're doing is shooting yourself in the foot at the moment. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed the memo that it's not permitted to canvass. Continuing to do so (1, 2) isn't appropriate; any more canvassing will result in a 24 hour block. Again, how much you canvass will not change this election; people find it more annoying than anything here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Limetolime - elections

Yeah... not gonna happen. Good luck with your campaign! Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page User:Aspririn has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creamy3 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note my statement at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Creamy3...Specifically, based on your previous behavior, there's plenty of reason to block this account. If you're actually interested in contributing positively, your best option would be a mature acknowledgment of previous missteps and a pledge to move forward, eschewing the types of disruption that precipitated prior blocks. — Scientizzle 17:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Listen, what Scientizzle said is exactly right. In the past I made contributions to Wikipedia that were, to say the least, unproductive. But I'm passionate about Wikipedia, and I haven't made any vandilizations or done anything wrong. I'm hoping to put my past behind me and look to the future. Please unblock me and I'll prove that I can be a quality Wikipedian. Give me a chance, and I'll make it worthwhile. Thank you. Shamwow86 (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the statements made by Scientizzle above and at the SPI case. I brought this sockpuppetry case, not simply because you were obviously Creamy3, but because you began engaging in deceptive behavior again. (Being deceitful about your past, your contributions, canvassing, being dishonest when directly questioned, etc. etc.). I agree that many of your contributions to article space have been good, especially dealing with lesser known films and personalities. And if you ever could learn to stop the MySpacey junk, the sockpuppetry and the other immature disruptive behavior, than you could be a benefit to WP. In other words, if you grew up and treated the project work seriously, I would also approve of allowing a fresh start. Unfortunately, your registering another sock just yesterday - so you could vote for yourself - is not a positive indicator of maturity or productivity. Unfortunately. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sally77 is my cousin, not me. She is actually interested in working on Wikipedia. I totally agree with everything else though. How about giving me one last chance to prove that I can be a quality contributor to Wikipedia. No more B.S. and tomfoolery, I swear. Shamwow86 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you don't quite understand. Whether User:Sally77 is you or your cousin is irrelevant. Whether that account is meat or sock, it still constitutes Puppetry. One of the foundations of Wikipedia is the principle of consensus opinion. And any actions which undermine that -- that is, game the system -- are disruptive. Sockpuppetry is used to falsely influence consensus opinion. It doesn't matter if it is just a talk page discussion, an Afd or a coordinator election, it undermines the entire concept of Wikipedia. That is why sockpuppets are dealt with harshly. I think if you want to return, you should take a few weeks and read the WP policies. Familiarize yourself with all the Wikipedia:Five pillars policies, especially Wikipedia:Consensus and how it relates to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Also read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. As Scientizzle mentioned, if you can make a sincere statement which clearly demonstrates that you understand the problems with your past actions -- and have a clear plan for moving forward -- an unblock will be considered. I'll keep this page watchlisted. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)