User talk:(127.0.0.1)

March 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Terry Fator, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please have a look at my summary, there are two sources. One is already referenced (usatoday) and the other is given in the comment. Do you want other sources? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with edits using Huggle, the full edit summary isn't immediately visible so I apologise if I missed the refs you included. However, to be included in the article the refs also need to be properly cited in-line with the statement. That way other editors can review them and check that they are reliable. Can you put the refs into the article ? I am happy to help if that is a problem. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first source usatoday is already referenced in the paragraph I changed as reference #20. The other source I mentioned is not yet referenced in the article. This is http://mavensvegas.com/casino_pages/shows/mirage_shows_terry_fator.html. However I found an more trustworthy looking source: http://www.lasvegashotels.com/index.php/blog/post/325/terry-fator-at-the-mirage-singing-turtle-and-a-seven-piece-band.htm . What do you think? Can you please undo your revert? Thanks! (127.0.0.1) (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (127.0.0.1) (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello, (127.0.0.1). We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page FreeFileSync, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy. I don't know why you are accusing me of COI. Please state the specific edit that you are concerned about and why you think I may have a COI. Thanks. By the way, when I read your baseless and unfounded accusations I immediately regretted my donation to the Wikipedia foundation. This feels like a witch-hunt. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. 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/Max4142, 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. Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threats. Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z7

Note that this is compounded by the sockpuppetry noted above. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #21619 was submitted on May 23, 2018 20:51:08. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can I still edit my page? (127.0.0.1) (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least I can edit this page. @JzG:, I can you please clarify your action against me? I did not make a legal threat on Wikipedia. A "legal threat", in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal process that would target another editor. My statements were not meant this eay. Instead, when I wrote "filing counterclaims" I referred to the Wikipedia's internal jurisdictional or legal system, e.g., arbitration, appeal and this type of ban that can be enforced. I was talking about using the same mechanics that Guy Macon used against me - as he obviously "sued" me using Wikipedia's internal legal system (for a lack of a better word - remember that I'm not a native English speaker). In the Wikipedia world, he's the "prosecutor" and filed "claims", you are the "judge". So why am I not allowed to use the Wikipedia internal "legal" system as well? It seems that Guy Macon is very powerful, he knows the Wikipedia legal system, he knows how to get somebody banned even without a "trial". Maybe these terms are too "legalistic" but I have no better words for it. Also I felt that Guy Macon "besmirched" my reputation by pulling me into a sockpupetry investigation. In my opinion that's "libel" - maybe that's too legalese or too strong a word but my dictionary brought this up. I learned that Wikpipedia does not use the term "libel" but rather "casting aspersions", therefore I wrote libel (mind the link in my original quote) although I had never heard of that term "Casting_aspersions" before. Additionally, I wonder why Wikipedia bans editors first without hearing both sides first. Thanks. (127.0.0.1) (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]