User talk:Joeyjoejoeman

September 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:List of World War I video games, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Don Durandal (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's talk page comments[edit]

Hello. In answer to your comment on my talk page, "don't edit other people's comments" is one of wikipedia's guidelines (<- note that this link was already in my previous comment). If you disagree with it, bring it up at the village pump, not to me. Note that talk pages are not articles. There is little reason to clean them up, and doing so would be rude to other users. Don Durandal (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Arrowshot Games[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Arrowshot Games requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Angelo Michael (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability concerns[edit]

I've deleted the page for Arrowshot Games, but I have to say that I'm particularly worried about the site's notability. The problem is that while you assert that the site is popular, popularity is not the same thing as notability. The site has to have received coverage in reliable sources (reviews, interview, and the like) in order to pass WP:GNG. I can't see where the games are really that notable either. Popularity might make it more likely that something will gain coverage, but it's no guarantee. Most indie games and companies have a huge issue with coverage, but they still have to have it. As an example of how hard it is to pass our guidelines and how difficult finding sources can be, I would like to point you towards Marble Hornets. That page was deleted years ago for a lack of notability, despite that it is probably the best known Slender Man inspired webseries out there and despite its huge fan following. I only recently had enough coverage to reinstate it and that was after collecting material for quite a long time. I'm still somewhat worried that it'll get nominated for deletion: it's just that hard to pass notability guidelines on here.

I would probably recommend against trying to re-introduce the page to Wikipedia. The site just isn't notable enough to pass notability guidelines. You can always keep an eye out for sources, but as it stands now I don't see a single source out there that would count towards notability right now. Unless they have a huge breakout hit that gains coverage along the lines of A Hat in Time, odds are that they'll probably remain a relatively obscure gaming company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of World War I video games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

*''[https://sites.google.com/site/arrowshotgames/trenches-and-trouble Trenches and Trouble]'' (2013

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joeyjoejoeman. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here. ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Blocking Me![edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I am sick of being blocked! I was trying to improve an article and then I get blocked by an administrator who knows nothing about the subject of the article. He calls my edits "spam." I was adding legit links to an article about world war i video games. That's not spam. Spam is adding links to a toothpaste brand on the world war i video game list, not adding world war i video games. I made multiple accounts to stop sock puppets from doing the same thing on the article. Don't believe me? Then why do all the ips trace to the same location?

Decline reason:

You admit to abusing multiple accounts, and expect to be unblocked for some reason? And you're wrong about WP:SPAM, but that's irrelevant; your abuse of multiple accounts is utterly unacceptable. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:07, 23 March 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

For the last guy who said I didn't have a good reason to not be blocked, I still don't think I have a good reason to be blocked. I got this quote straight from the Sock puppetry article: "While there are some valid reasons for maintaining multiple accounts on the project, the improper use of multiple accounts is not allowed." I did have a good reason. There were vandals on the list of wwi video games article who kept removing legit links from it. I made multiple accounts to prevent further vandalism. And like I said above, one of the vandals was probably using a proxy because all of the ip users editing it traced to the same location. If that guy can make multiple accounts and get away with it, I should be able to, too. It's unfair that when I'm editing an article to prevent vandals, I get my account deleted and the vandals win. If you're not going to unblock my account, than at least unblock my ip. And if this is about that whole edit war thing with the no more than 3 reverts a day rule, than check out the "view history" page for list of wwi video games. I never used an account to make more than 3 reverts a day. I don't see a good reason for losing my account as I never got an explanation for how I misused multiple accounts. I also think that there could be a bit of racism involved in this case as I'm a part of Wikiproject Italy and the ip users who vandalized the article traced down to Germany and Italy switched sides against Germany in wwi. I highly doubt that that's the case, but it's a possibility (jk). Joeyjoejoeman (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you may not create multiple accounts to insert a promotional link that you have a conflict of interest with. As it is clear that you have not read and comprehended the policies you've been pointed to, it seems likely that you will return to the same problematic behavior that lead to your block. Kuru (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2014 (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.