User talk:Abbycarroll

Hi

Your submission at Articles for creation: Stevie Mackey ( Vocal Coach ) (July 5)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Dan arndt was: undefined

Dan arndt (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abbycarroll! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you email me?

Abby,

I need to discuss some of your recent edits with you and I would rather do that privately. Can you follow the link to my talk page or user page and click on "Email this user" (on the left) or the pinkish box at the top right of my user page that says "This user can be reached by email". Then you can use the form to send me an email.

Don't worry; you're not in trouble or anything. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case

I emailed you sir

July 2019

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:John from Idegon. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Do not restore material that a user has removed from their own talk page. Users are, with very limited exceptions (none of which apply here), allowed to remove material from their talk page. See WP:OWNTALK. When a user deletes a thread you have been participating in, leave it alone and take it as strong hint that the discussion is over. Meters (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters Hello, I was restoring an unfinished discussion between john and myself. And if that's thte case , john has edited/removed/restored my pages. And soeone locked my sandbox ? Maybe john.

And it wasn't over on my watch Meters Hello, I was restoring an unfinished discussion between john and myself. And if that's thte case , john has edited/removed/restored my pages. And soeone locked my sandbox ? Maybe john.

And it wasn't over on my watch

Don't rremove my signature And it does not matter if you don't think the conversation was over. The user removed it form his talk page as he is allowed to do. You are not allowed to restore it. Meters (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If im not mistaken , this is my talk page, and if I want to remove your signature I can? correct?

Stop doing this. No you cannot. You may remove my entire post, as you did with my comment about NPA,, but you cannot change what I posted. Removing my signature is not appropriate. Neither was removing part of the content of my last post, or part of my signature. And please indent and sign your talkpage posts. Use one colon per level of indent (this paragraph starts with one ":", and use ~~~~ to automatically add your signature and a timestamp. Meters (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't post the identical thread on my talk page. There is no need to discuss this in multiple placed. Meters (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters

could you cite the policy that I cant? and can you site where it says I must endent? and signature? thakks Abbycarroll (talk)

Editors are allowed to remove posts from their user talk pages as explained in WP:BLANKING. There are certain posts that cannot be removed, but pretty much anything else can. So, if you want to remove comments from your user talk page, you can but you need to make sure that by doing so you don't misrepresent or mislead anyone. When an editor removes a post or a discussion thread from their use talk page, the community will see the removal as at least the editor having read the post. Whether the editor has removed the post because they agree with it, are annoyed by edit or simply doesn't want to respond to it, is irrelevant; once the post or thread has been removed that's basically the end of the discussion on that user talk page and you shouldn't re-add the post. The only this is really a problem is when removing a post might give others the impression that some agreement or acknowledgement of wrong doing was made and imply that someone posted something they didn't. For example, John removes your posts because he doesn't like what you posted and then accuses you of never responding to him at all. Even in this case, those there will be a record of your posts in the page's editing history that John cannot remove. So, there will also be evidence that you posted and responded to him.

John cannot your lock user sandbox; only and administrator can do that. The last I checked, an administrator named RHaworth is the one who deleted our sandbox. If you've got questions about that, you can ask him on his user talk page.

You don't have any ownership over any pages on Wikipedia, i.e. you don't have a "My page", and even your userpage is not yours. Most editors will refrain from editing your userpage, your user sandbox, or even a draft you create unless they think there's a major policy or guideline violation (like WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO) which needs to be addressed. In that case, the Wikipedia community expects them to do what they can to remove the content deemed to be problematic. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbycarroll, it's not a mandatory policy. I asked yo to please do it, I didn't tell you that you had to do it. If you don't do it it is very difficult to follow threads.It's recommended good practice. See WP:TPG#YES Meters (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Abbycarroll. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Enough. I already mentioned the issue of personal attacks to you. You removed my post and changed your user page, so you obviously saw it. And yet you are doing it again, so this time I'm giving you a formal WP:NPA warning. Remove the attack and stop doing this Meters (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) how did I attack users? honestly I didn't name anybody.

As I posted above, you don't need to name anyone specific, particularly when it's clear (especially to that other person) that your referring to someone specific. There's a record of every edit you make and these are called diffs; it wouldn't take a genius to look at your diffs, and put them together like you would put together a jig-saw puzzle and figure out exactly who you're talking about. Even if that wasn't the case, what you posted in pretty much not going to be considered OK per WP:POLEMIC and could be removed by an administrator. Even though it might be tempting to push the envelope every now and then to see how far you can go, the response is not going to be one you like if you continue to push this particular envelope. -- ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 04:45, July 6, 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Paducah Tilghman High School. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Personal attacks are not allowed anywhere. That includes edit summaries. Meters (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with John from Idegon

In case it hasn't been made perfectly clear, it's time to let that feud go. It's just not appropriate for you to challenge him on his talk page. Please just move on. El_C 05:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dujuan Thomas

Hello Abbycarroll,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dujuan Thomas for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dujuan Thomas for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dujuan Thomas 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dujuan Thomas until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. So Why 08:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being obvious

I reverted your edit to Wikipedia:Notability (people) because that page is a guideline. It is not a place to have discussion. Further, that guideline's talk page is for discussion about the guideline, not your sad attempt to promote a draft of yours. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accident, and please refrain from being a jerk. And it's not a draft it's an actual page, thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:Abbycarroll, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I forgot how to do that. Havent been on here in months. Abbycarroll (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:John from Idegon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. here John from Idegon (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon and if you continue to Wiki Hound users I will ensure an admin is notified. You dont scare me so stop harrassing me and trying to put lies on my talk page. You wiki hounded me when i joined wikipedia and i have learned that what you did was against policy and is applicable for being banned. So please refrain from contacting me. Abbycarroll (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been notified. John is permitted to participate in any AfD they see fit. Him participating in a deletion discussion that involves an article you authored does not immediately counts as hounding, while saying it is so does amount to catsing aspersions. Please don't do that. And especially, avoid this sort of innuendo as it does not advance resolution. If you have evidence of misconduct, ANI is a noticeboard in which you may try to seek redress (by presenting that evidence, preferably in the form of diffs), though I, myself, would not recommend you take such an action at this time. But, ultimately, it is totally up to you. El_C 21:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Thanks for your input, John's hounding goes back 3 months and I am fully aware of what users can and cannot do. I am not the first user to have issue with john. As he seems to hound several user especially new users ( check his talk page ) you can see where he has been notified that he may be acting inappropriately. And if you go back 3 months you can see his constant hounding that I referred too. Abbycarroll (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I like my evidence in the form of diffs. Sending me to someone's talk page falls short of that. Also, please review WP:INDENT. El_C 21:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbycarroll, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Chris Troutman (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abbycarroll. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked because I understand why I was blocked. I will say however, that I was not operating the account I am being accused of sockpuppeting. Rather it was someone I know and I asked them to get involved with the discussion of an article I created. I did know feel like that was against wikipedia policy? But I totally understand it would be wrong to create a fake account to "win" the debate. It was not that serious to me. I want to continue to make productive edits to wikipedia and build my references so when it is the right time, I can create an article worthy of wiki. 17:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

With comments below like Maybe a photo of a little human interaction would benefit users., I don't think it would be in the best interest of the encyclopedia to unblock you at this time. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:03, 19 October 2019 (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 was not operating the account" Lies. As the SPI evidence shows, this wasn't meat-puppetry where you asked someone else to help. It was always just you. I promise you won't get unblocked if you can't just come clean about that. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chris troutman What do you mean "always just you"? Because someone agreed with me that I knew? There is more to my life than wikipedia, by saying that. I could care less than create a fake account to "support" my self. Maybe unlike other users, I know people outside of this site? Lol...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbycarroll (talk • contribs) 18:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"someone agreed with me that I knew" No one agreed with you. "There is more to my life than wikipedia, by saying that." Then why are you asking to get unblocked? "I could care less than create a fake account to "support" my self." But you did create a fake account to make a sad attempt at turning the tide at AfD. "Maybe unlike other users, I know people outside of this site?" Prove it. "Lol..." I know you want to laugh; that would make it feel better. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Chris troutman

I'm asking to get unblocked because I was blocked against policy and without and investigation other than a shared IP address. And within the wiki project mentioned in the unblocking process. I am able to prove Aquantenceship and "meet up" with this person. I'd love to send you a picture of me and them lol. Maybe a photo of a little human interaction would benefit users. Also I want to get unblocked so wikipedia does not get over run with users that belive they own this site, and wikihound new users and even more specifically female users. It's sad that certain users find it okay to personally attack and not be civil, nor abide by wiki policy, but will quickly hound a new user if they make the slightest mistake. I believe wiki should put a policy that "veteran" users should have a mandatory 1 week break every other week to actually get off their computer and interact with real people and the real world hahaha. I use wikipedia for fun and to check on things from my area ( as I should ) but it seems that "veteran" users dont like new users, nor do they like change or someone contesting them. The past months I have built my knowledge of wikipedia to better use it, and to not go against policy. And yes I'm still learning, and the article I created maybe wasnt ready for wiki, and I appreciate users that were helpful in pointing out things it needed. But it was totally unfair that certain users could bash and personally attack and not be reprimanded. Abbycarroll (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you repeat this behavior (changing my decline to an accept, impersonating other users), you will lose the ability to edit this page. Before blaming it on your kid again, please keep in mind that accounts that claim to be compromised cannot be unblocked. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Stevie Mackey concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Stevie Mackey, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stevie Mackey

Hello, Abbycarroll. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stevie Mackey".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]