User talk:Damn cookies!

Re

I can see that you feel wronged. ~~However, why did you create multiple accounts anyway? To get "support" for something you were making up? Or?~~ Finalius (Shpeak?) 11:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read why you did make a sock. However, even if your other account didn't do that much wrong, creating another account to go around that block is, at the very least, frowned upon. Expect your edits to be watched. Finalius (Shpeak?) 11:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAFT and other problems

Sorry, but I don't have much reason to believe your good intentions. You admit to being a sockpuppet of User:Kill me when i die, and claim you created this account because Kill me when i die was blocked. Kill me when i die admitted to being the same person as User:Bully25, but Bully25 wasn't blocked when Kill me when i die was created, so you had no reason to create sockpuppets except disruption. It seems that your reason for being on Wikipedia is to create articles and redirects with weird titles, whether their existence is justified or not. I think you are a vandal, and your protestations of innocence have created just enough doubt in my mind that I haven't reported you to administrators for block evasion. I may be breaking rules just by not doing that, so don't complain to me that you're being treated unfairly.

If you want to prove me wrong, stop creating pointless pages, stop hanging around DAFT, and do constructive work. If you don't, I will report you and you will be blocked yet again. A. Parrot (talk) 01:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I can play devil's advocate for a second. This user made a couple contributions outside the realm of DAFT. But so did their other accounts. Bully25 made up strange redirects even before Kmwid suggested a page on them. I thought their original account to be (forgive me) strange, not wanting templated messages, then blanking their page and never editing again.

To DC: First of all, remember the vital rule about calling the police on fires you set which, I hasten to admit, I added? Bully broke that rule, and now Kmwid did, through strange redirect suggestion. Besides that, isn't your new name somewhat against the username policy (profanity)? Bottom line: If you wanted to edit constructively, you should have used your old account and edited other pages. I saw nothing much wrong with the legit contribs, but you ruin an account with shady business like DAFT suicide (breaking rule 5). Our patience is running low. Please heed to the rules, which were instituted to be followed, not broken. Finalius (Shpeak?) 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i'm not quite sure where to start here.

I think i'll start by explaining the bully25/Kill me when i die issue. I made Kill me when i die because i simply didn't care for the name Bully25 anymore, it was a product of a younger me. I'll admit i failed to check when the rules are on adandoning an account and making a new one, but i assumed it was okay.

Second of all, Freaky Redirects, i'm really not sure what i did wrong there, all i was doing was making suggestions for a future page. All the redirects listed were totally legit, just sounded funny out of context. I still support the idea of a freaky redirect page, but not if it's going to cause trouble. Any 'freaky redirects' made before it was suggested on the WP:DAFT talk, were NOT fodder for the page, as i hadn't thought of it yet, and in fact, it wasn't even my idea.

As for username policy, i was under the impression that any account breaking username policy would be banned upon creation. More to the point, my username isn't profane to anybody outside of the 1800s.

I'm not going to 'stop hanging around DAFT' as you put it, as i find the page hilarous. If you want, i can send any suggestion for articles to be added to whoever the head honcho over there is, and they can say whether or not they qualify

Lastly, i'm not a vandal. I admit to making the Meat Mum page, but that was an in-joke with my friends; a one off. A quick scan through Kill me when i die's contribs will show you that i'm a good faith editor. Granted i've made a few non-notable pages (Category:countries with varying regional drinking ages comes to mind), but i also make totally legit pages (EG:Category: Battles and conflicts without fatalities, or The Bombing of The Vatican). The whole reason i got banned in the first place was because i got blamed for being a sock of a user called So Doggamn, who i swear isn't me. Basically, i'm saying that i won't make disruptive edits, i'm happy if people want to ~~waste~~ spend their time patrolling my edits, that's their porogative. So i'd like it if all this hype about me being the DAFT vandal were to go away. I'll continue to visit the page, just to check for new articles, maybe suggest one, but in the interest of keeping the peace, i won't add new atricles to the page. Damn cookies! (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'd like it if Kill Me When I Die could be unblocked, as that account was blocked for being a sock of an account that it honestly wasn't. I also much prefer the name. Not sure what the chances of that happening are, but i'd be happy for this account to be blocked if Kill Me When I Die was 'reconciled' Damn cookies! (talk) 09:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your pleas and made requests. I understand you enjoy DAFT (I love it), but that doesn't mean you have to add things to it (I never have), even if someone else made it and you just want to submit it. Sorry to say, but if you break the rules even once, your trust goes down. We're being nice by letting you, technically a block evader, still edit. I don't know what Parrot has to say, but I'm not going to accuse you anymore as long as you continue to make constructive edits and, sorry to say, avoid DAFT for now. As for unblocking your old account, that's not up to me, but there's likely zero chance of that; you kind of lost the privilege to that name earlier. If you really want to change, you could go to WP:CHU/S and request changing it to a very similar name. But anyways, consider yourself let off with a final warning. Finalius (Shpeak?) 11:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fake references

Hi! Don't insert references that clearly doesn't cover the "information" you try to convey. This is seen as a problem. Examples: Commonwealth War Graves Akureyri doesn't mention any battle. The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa: is a mirror of Wikipedia and can't be used, and doesn't mention Akureyri. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating hoax articles which include falsified references and continued sock puppetry.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nick-D (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]