User talk:WikiElvis1965

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Joey Huffman has been reverted. Your edit here to Joey Huffman was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://m.facebook.com/joey.huffman.keyboards?feed_ufi=comments) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Joey Huffman. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you need to follow

 * Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions. - Next attack I see gets a final warning, then a report to the admins.
 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required. - Wikipedia is about verifiable information, not just any information.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * Assume good faith as much as reasonably possible, and then about half-way past the border for unreasonable possibility.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Skinny Molly, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Luke Bradshaw for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Luke Bradshaw is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Luke Bradshaw until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jbh (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Luke Bradshaw. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot I  Talk to my owner :Online 11:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki Elvis. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Ian.thomson. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

attacking other editors? you keep on puttin warnings here without saying what i exactly do wrong, WikiElvis1965 (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a personal attack to say that someone doesn't have a life unless they joke about it first, and it is a personal attack to say that someone isn't contributing to the site unless you've got some good evidence. The "warnings" that I and other users have put on your article are maintenance templates that say what the problem is if you'd pay attention enough to read them.  I have addressed your concerns repeatedly, but you ignore the answers.
 * You do realize that I'm not a robot, right? Quit harassing me for immediate responses to every single little thing or I will report you for harassment.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been told that removing AfD templates is wrong. You've been told that violating WP:NPA is wrong. And, so far as I have seen, you have been given above in the section entitled "A summary of site policies and guidelines you need to follow" and above that in the template in the "Welcome" section a series of links to the relevant policies and guidelines of the project. The first thing you should do at this point is read those two sections and follow the links to the pages they link to. John Carter (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

but my information is inside these sources! but your not, hmmm, how should we call it? the friendly helper? the dad figure who says his son is doing wrong? no, (and please dont put a warning because "i made a personal" attack, please say exactly what i do wrong because i have autism (i dont like to say this, but otherwise it will escalate) WikiElvis1965 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

" Quit harassing me (yes, stop with it i want to make articles on wikipedia, i dont want to get harassed!) for immediate responses to every single little thing (exactly, you are acting like a stalker!) or I will report you for harassment (i tried to, but they deleted my request). WikiElvis1965 (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that you have previously derogatorily accused a user of having autism, I find your claim that you have autism hard to believe.
 * Still, I will hold your hand through a number of issues.
 * The section "A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful" says "When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable)." The template at the top of the Luke Bradshaw article says that the article's "sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations," which again explains the use of reference tags.  If you replace the links at the bottom of the page with inline citations (using ref tags), then we can get rid of the template about the inline citations.
 * As for the other template (about the article's potential deletion), at Articles for deletion/Luke Bradshaw, I have repeatedly explained that the sources about Bradshaw must be specifically about Bradshaw (not just things he's involved in), and that they must be independent of Bradshaw.
 * Below the summary of policies and guidelines is a template message saying not to mark your edits as minor unless they are "things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content." That you keep marking your edits as minor indicates that you either did not bother reading the message (which is your fault), or you are actively ignoring it (which is a sign of bad-faith editing).
 * Actually read messages left for you by others, otherwise you have no reason to expect others to respond to your messages. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

whatever, i dont care about the checkuser because im not that Hank guy and im not that boozebass guy, WikiElvis1965 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

excuse me?

 * You admitted to two more accounts, four more were absolutely confirmed. You were not blocked simply for having a problem with the pronoun I, you were blocked because:
 * you only admitted to two of the accounts (Wiki_Elvis and Hilbilly_Blues), not the rest of them
 * your writing style and behavior matches a fifth account
 * all of those accounts were being used promotionally
 * As for which account is the master account, the oldest account is considered the master account. There is a very easy way to recover your old password (instructions linked here).  Log out of this account, go to the log in page, enter Wiki_Elvis, click the "Mail me a new password" button, and check your email.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't enter a e-mail adress when i made my accounts, so thats my i made other ones, i am all of them except that Hank dude, c'mon i guess someone made that account to get me blocked, WikiElvis1965 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

i didn't use them for "promotion", i mean serious, why would i want to promote someone else? i simply translates some o my dutch articles to English, and i forgot about Rocknroll1 and that other one i dont recall because i didn't do anything with them (i mean i didn't let them interact with each other, you even said that they began active after the other ones became inactive, i want that this account will be the master account because i dont use the other ones anymore (i cant even let them interact with each other, i mean i dont even have the passwords! and that Hank dude pisses me off a lot, im not him, please do the research thing again, so i can find better sources for the Luke Bradshaw article, ( i use the "small edit button" because thats asked a lot on the Dutch wikipedia, they ask if you use that button WikiElvis1965 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please be patient; is very large and an admin will be along shortly. Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

PLEASE RESPOND!
please respond now, im hoping that it is possible to contribute again to wikipedia, WikiElvis1965 (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at this page and see the current list of active unblock requests, and the time since the last one was filed. Right now, by my count, there are twelve unblock requests from editors who have been blocked for longer than you have. I am not an admin, and cannot take part in that function, but, if they do as I would, and start with the oldest first, it might still be awhile until they get to you. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)