User talk:Alexcarson001

Ckatz chat spy  02:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read through the note you left on my talk page. Unfortunately, you appear to yet another account created solely to promote a site that does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory service or an advertising platform, and that the existence of a site does not necessarily mean that it warrants coverage in an encyclopaedia. Thank you. --Ckatz chat spy  02:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all you seem to have blocked me because you don't like the page I was trying to add. Beyond the fact that I didn't even add it to public, it's in my private area. Second I have no idea who "Hedshots" is, and the only reason to have Wikipedia account IS to add or alter something, correct? You seem to be a little mean spirited. Isn't this supposed to be a community?Alexcarson001 (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I at least deserve a response since your reasoning is completely unfounded. You were quite quick to block me, you should give the same deference to an intelligent conversation. Alexcarson001 (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well you now seem to be ignoring me. If i don't hear from you shortly, I will consider you unresponsive to my attempt at resolving this matter and I will begin the Request For Comment process. Alexcarson001 (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the above that this is likely to be a sockpuppet account. Dekimasu よ! 06:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, what other reasons are there to start an account other than to edit or start a page? So it would make sense that I would start an account, then immediately try to write something. Also, isn't the purpose of writing a draft or private page to get the page "wikipedia" ready? How can I prove that I am not a sock puppet of anyone? You have to understand how frustrating this is. Lastly it would make sense that The Script Lab would have other people wanting to make pages, it a pretty popular site with screenwriters and the wikipedia screenwriting page is atrocious and anyone I know that's ever tried to edit or improve it gets reverted.Alexcarson001 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note, slightly off topic, that all wikipedia pages are public. There is no such thing as a private page. And although you have very few edits with this account, those edits indicate a significant level of editing skill. Under what name did you acquire this?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Anthony, I'm being accused of sockpuppetry but this is actually my one and only account and my first attempt at a page. sorry for my confusion on the public/private assumption, I thought when they are in user space that they are private. thanks for the info and props. Ironically, If I want to continue doing anything on wikipedia I'll have to become what they are accusing me of. LOL Alexcarson001 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems extremely unlikely that you would just happen to create an article about the same non-notable subject that six other single-purpose accounts worked on in the past few days, and also that your explanations and attitude are similar. --Ckatz chat spy  22:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard for me to respond to the "attitude" and "argument" argument, simply because I don't know the person, nor am I privy to their arguments. I am wondering how you became the arbiter of "notable"? I wasn't even done with my page when you deleted it. Is it just possible that there are a number of people out there that find this subject notable and that's why they are all trying to put the page up. Doesn't that begin to serve to define notable?Alexcarson001 (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand that you cannot now answer here, but to answer your question: no, it does not. And even if a number of unconnected people should suddenly find this subject notable - which in wikipedia terms it clearly is not - then it is straining the boundaries of credulity to suppose that they might simultaneously find it notable using the same phraseology. Feel free to answer on the talk page of one of your other, earlier accounts.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 10:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)