User talk:FinalPoint1988

FinalPoint1988, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi FinalPoint1988! 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 experienced editors like Osarius (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alejandra Ávalos, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rock and El Universal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alejandra Ávalos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Night Club. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Chloë Grace Moretz, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, FinalPoint: that edit was fine. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Drmies, as you can see, some people confuse Wikipedia with "Who dated Who"/Cheaters show, just take a look .. Jennifer Lopez, every single affair is included, a never-ending "chit-chat"...and in my very personal opinion, nowadays everybody is a "philanthropist" almost a saint; and we all should thank god for their kindness and existence..so much useless stuff about that on Wikipedia (Despacito), and sadly there are many articles that need some improvements, info and nobody cares, just because they belong to past generations, not in the current spotlight; fortunately there are some Great editors-administrators like you and some others, who are making Wikipedia great again and are doing a great great job...Happy editing! Salutes! FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making Wikipedia Great Again! Thanks, and keep up the good work. You might enjoy a beer and a grump session with John, who is a professional gossip killer. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Drmies, I know that your work is tough often, some people/companies find on Wikipedia the perfect place to make their own publicity to increase their business profits, there are some wrong actions on WP, not for long..I hope... Making Wikipedia & Wikimedia Great Again!!...and thanks a lot, it will be a pleasure to meet John..will be in touch... FinalPoint1988 (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pointy, that's some good work your doing cutting back dem overblown hagiographies, and I totally agree with your comments above. Though I'd quibble with the phrase "Make Wikipedia & Wikimedia Great Again" (like, was it ever? amirite doc?) Most folk are quite resistant to the old pruning, but be bold.. I got your back. -- ^talk 02:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, there are tons of BLPs filled with pure blah, blah, twitter feuds, love affairs, promotional stuff, ...(Kanye West, Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez (infinite verbosity about her ass)-...for instance), it is a thoughtful work for you Hillbillyholiday and some administrators to put things in order to make a Genuine Encyclopaedia, 'cause there are some disrespectful/foolish persons that confuse Wikipedia with a stupid tabloid, Instagram, WHO DATED WHO, Wikia, etc, etc..but go ahead Hillbillyholiday, Congrats for your objective/tireless work.. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lohan

You don't have to shout in capital letters. Read my edit summary. It simply stated that your removal was unexplained. There is a reason we have edit summaries. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not shouting at all, it was for the only purpose of emphasizing the word "Rumors" included in the removed sentence ...take it easy, have a good day..FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am taking it easy. In text communication, including Wikipedia edit summaries and talk pages, all caps is assumed to be shouting. But if you say you didn't intend to shout, I'll accept that. You might avoid all caps in the future. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax1995?

FinalPoint1988, I have to ask: Are you Ajax1995? You remind me of him. A lot. Your edit summaries and rationales are very similar. For example, this is something he would have done to the Nicolas Cage article. In cases like those, you need to keep in mind that both praise and criticism can go in the lead of a celebrity article, especially if the criticism is substantial and is covered lower in the article. If the content is sourced to an author, there is no need to ask "by whom," as is made clear on Template:Whom. If the content is sourced lower in the article, the lead simply serves as a summary, which is also made clear at WP:Weasel words. Like WP:Weasel words and Template:Who note, words like most and some are not automatically weasel words and they are not banned. Per WP:CITELEAD, citations in the lead are not always necessary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice Flyer22 Reborn; since 2007 I began editing the encyclopaedia while attending college, and more frequently since 2009, but for some reasons I was banned from editing (not for vandalism), but I learned so much..for instance...avoiding the use of multiple IPs or accounts, avoiding lots of thanks, avoiding edit wars, but one thing is true, Wikipedia is a place of very valuable people, and I'm so sad by the fact that some valuable Wikipedians are currently blocked for some absurd reasons, not for vandalism... happy editing Flyer FinalPoint1988 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Ajax1995? I'm going through the contributions of both accounts, and the warnings that Bishonen and I left on the Ajax1995 talk page, and you really are very similar to Ajax1995. Your second above comment in this section is somewhat similar to what he stated here. It's good that you acknowledged that you are not a complete newbie; I knew that. But that does not answer my question. I doubt you were banned; there is a difference between WP:Block and WP:Ban. Keep in mind that whatever your response, I will continue to look into this matter and might start a WP:Sock investigation on you. Even if you have improved as an editor, an indefinite block means that you should not be editing now. A block is on the person, not simply on the account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right Flyer, I'm Ajax1995, I leave for a few minutes, apologies, I have a lot of work, closing time, but I'll be back in some minutes...... FinalPoint1988 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being honest. I do think you have improved as an editor (for example, you are a lot more collegial now), but there are still some problems with your editing and you should have pursued getting unblocked by asking for an unblock on your Ajax1995 account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or, since your talk page access was revoked on the Ajax1995 talk page, you should have asked for an unblock through WP:UTRS. Or maybe you did ask through WP:UTRS? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't do that, Flyer, but, perhaps (IMO), my unblock was already very difficult, for some reasons..I was considered "bold/reckless", and right, I made some mistakes, and I paid for them, but I never vandalized Wikipedia, on the other hand I was involved in some edit wars..for instance...Donald Trump, Kanye West, Madonna..and I made some enemies..but I appreciate your advice Flyer, thanks for that!, and again an apologize, I'm going away for a few hours, I have to drive (and sleep) for some hours...but I'll be back tomorrow, thanks for your understanding..Salutes and happy editing!..FinalPoint1988 (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax1995. Thank you. I suggest you need to legitimise this new account of yours. Best of luck, I have noted you seem to have turned over a new leaf. W C M_email 17:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC) @Drmies: you usually bring common sense to these cases. W C M_email 17:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wee Curry Monster, I doubt Mrs. Drmies would subscribe to that, but OK--they admitted. There is no evidence of them having any more accounts than this one, and that's all I got to say right now. I suspect you are interested in whether I would block the editor? Well, do they deserve one? Have they done disruptive stuff? Can I have some coffee first since I'm a bit sleepy? Drmies (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't expect you to block the editor, precisely why I pinged you. I don't think they do deserve one. W C M_email 21:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the behavioral evidence is what allowed me to identify him. As for WP:CheckUser evidence, this can be easily solved by restoring talk page access to the Ajax1995 account and having FinalPoint1988 log into his Ajax1995 account and post a comment on that talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Ajax1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. Katie^talk 17:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a brazen attempt at an end run around our policies. We can have a discussion about this at WP:AN if you can find a willing administrator (a discussion in which I will not participate), but I have no tolerance for indefinitely blocked sockmasters who return without following the procedures listed in WP:OFFER. Katie^talk 17:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]