User talk:Alexcarson001

Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Hedshots (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you are not a sock puppet, and 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.

Ckatz^chat _spy 02:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Alexcarson001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Don't worry I won't be posting long on this talk page, I can see this is going nowhere. But I did want to point out that the definition of a bully, is a person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. Please don't threaten or bully me for using a word that by definition fits like glove. I am not a sock puppet, just a newbie user that ran into an all powerful admin who seems to have had a beef with someone that likes a site that I follow. I wish you all well, and will certainly steer clear of deleted pages in the futureAlexcarson001 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're right, you won't be posting long on this talk page: your ability to edit it has been revoked due to your misuse of the unblock template as a soapbox. Kinu ^t/_c 23:12, 23 March 2011 (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).

Alexcarson001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i can see that I will get no where with this, but I can't tell you how frustrating it is to finally want to write a page and to be labelled falsely by bullies because of someone else's actions that too be honest don't seem to bad to begin with. I'm not a sockpuppet, but the tragedy is whenever I want to edit something I'll need to become one. you guys need to look at what this community is supposed to be about.

Decline reason:

Based on the editing evidence and the opinions of several other editors, it is highly likely that this is a sockpuppet account. On another note, calling other editors and administrators "bullies" doesn't help your cause. Kinu ^t/_c 21:26, 23 March 2011 (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).

Alexcarson001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Huh? How can I be the sock puppet of anyone if I just got my first account? I have no idea who "Hedshots" isAlexcarson001 (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It seems more than a coincidence that your only edits have been to draft a spammy article in your user space which is very similar to that Hedshots (talk · contribs) created before being blocked. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2011 (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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]