User talk:Fluffy Kriby

Trey Parker and Matt Stone

Hi. I have partially reverted your edits to Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the following reasons:

As indicated by WP:LEADCITE:

The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source.

I don't think that Trey Parker's date of birth is likely to be challenged, so there is no need for the citation to be in the Lead. But even if you insist that the Lead does require it, that does not mean that you remove it from the Early life section, because the article body must obviously conform to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy too.

As for the Matt Stone article, the Lead is a summary of the article's most salient info, so it necessarily repeats information in the body of the article. For this reason, the Early life section, which is the first section of the body, should present the basic information of the article subject in an expository manner. For this reason, I think, the first sentence should begin with his full name. I also think it's a good idea if each successive section did so as well. Nightscream (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy Kriby, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Fluffy Kriby! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Seth MacFarlane. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just stop?

Monterrosa, why not just stop this? Why continue to create and use sockpuppet accounts, why continue to sock via IP addresses? If you care about Wikipedia as much as you claim, you will see that what you are doing is harmful and unproductive behavior, compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. You will continue to be detected and sockpuppet reports will continue to be filed. Your edits will continue to be considered invalid and reverted. Find another hobby and leave Wikipedia alone. You're not doing us, the encyclopedia, or yourself any favors or any good by continuing with this behavior. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clearly this isn't going no where you caught me. But hear me out. For the past five months the reason I've been coming back is because you kept reverting my edits which gets pisses me off. I never knew I was harming the site, I'm sorry. If you just let me revert all those edits then I promise I will leave wikipedia. You have my word just Please find your heart not to revert those edits and I will leave you and the other editors alone. Thank you.

Yes, it's going nowhere. Every single time. And I continue to detect you and your edits. I would leave those edits in place, but there are a few things that will keep me from doing so: WP:DENY and the fact that you continue to come back and try to disguise yourself through the use of different IPs and accounts AND because you then edit more articles in addition to the articles you edited as Monterrosa. There's no guarantee you will stop, and the creation of new accounts and use of IPs by you prove that. Your word is no good, you've abused the trust of the Wikipedia community time and again. I will continue to revert edits you make, you will continue to get pissed off, I will continue to file SPIs on you. The only solution is that you just stop coming back and editing. Your original account has been blocked for a reason. If only you had waited out the block, asked for a clean start and possibly been forgiven by those who make such decisions, it would have been fine. As it is, you've fucked it up beyond recognition. Give it a year or so without editing via IPs and sock accounts and come back to ask for forgiveness. Possibly a clean start will be granted. I'm not an administrator, so I have no say or leverage in such matters. But if you promised (to me) to stay away for a year and then chose after that time to ask for a clean start, I would do what I could to vouch for you. IF you stayed away for a year without socking. Your choice. As things stand, it's just a game that you will continue to lose. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know I fucked up I didn't knew that all I had to do was just wait but PLEASE,PLEASE just those reverts and then I will leave you guy's alone.

Sorry. If the only way you say you will stop is for your edits as a sockpuppet to stand, then it's obvious you're not only not interested in bettering the encyclopedia by following the rules and policies, you're going to sock again. This is not a negotiation. Take my suggestion to wait a year before returning and asking for forgiveness. You'll be happier. And will restore the trust you have destroyed by your choice to sock and edit war over and over and over again. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, I'm going to enjoy my summer with my friends and family and won't have to worry about your edits please just let me and then I will say goodbye. No more accounts I promise PLEASE!

You just threatened to continue to return as a sockpuppet if I don't do what you want AND are asking me to go against policy. You are also continuing to revert and edit war at articles as I write this. Thank you for just giving me the best reason yet to not believe anything you say or to ever trust you. My offer to vouch for you after a year of not socking is now rescinded. Have a nice summer, but plan on having your edits reverted with every sockpuppet account you create and every IP you sock with. I'm done trying to reason with you as you are nothing but a disruptive user with self-serving mal-intent. Your words and pleas have convinced me that requesting to have you branded as a long term abuser is the next step. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then, Goodbye then and take good care of my pages. Farewell, my friend:)

Possibly unfree File:Novel, Novel.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Novel, Novel.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Ish dar ian 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Connormah (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of awards and nominations received by Ellen DeGeneres

Hello Fluffy Kriby,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of awards and nominations received by Ellen DeGeneres for deletion, because it seems to be an article that was created in violation of a block or ban. Content created by banned users will be deleted immediately.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]