User talk:PrincessKannapolis

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Baugher until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ged UK. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Kelly Baugher because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! GedUK  14:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kelly Baugher. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Identical (film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Murdock until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alexf^(talk) 18:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It is clear from comments like "I am representative of this client... I am to supervise this Wikipedia article", and from your edit-warring and accusations of vandalism, that there are many things you do not understand about Wikipedia.

• Nobody
  owns
  a Wikipedia article. From the moment you post it, it is Wikipedia's article, not yours, and other users can and will edit it. If you want a place where you can control and "supervise" the articles you write, this is not the site for you. Page protection will not be used to help you defend your preferred version.
• Wikipedia is not a place for
  promotion of any kind. Using Wikipedia to write about subjects, such as your clients, where you have a WP:Conflict of interest is very strongly discouraged. Before editing again, please read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
  . Once again, if you are looking for a place to promote your clients, Wikipedia is not the site for you.
• Disagreement about article contents should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page.
  Edit warring
  is not allowed, and results in blocks, because if permitted articles would end in the form preferred by the most obstinate edit-warrior.
• Vandalism
  refers only to deliberate attempts to damage the encyclopedia, and accusations of vandalism should not be flung about during a content dispute.

JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. Please visit
  WP:PRIMER and its related links. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is high time you stopped promoting your client(s). Wikipedia most heartily disagrees with paid advocacy and advertising non notable items though the usage of paid PR and other experts. What will happen here is that you get blocked from here permanently. Since you have stated in your own words that Kelly Baugher is your client, it cannot be any more obvious that this is paid advocacy. You have been warned clearly enough and have chosen to disregard that warning.

You have discovered recently that you are under scrutiny and were blocked for transgression of one of our simpler rules. Immediately you returned from your block you have returned to editing your client's article. Now is the time to cease and desist. If your client is notable then others will handle it. Your insistence on editing it does her and you no credit. If she is not notable then the article will be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Justin Murdock.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GB fan 02:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at David H. Murdock, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. It seems wholly disingenuous to remove a COI template when you have what can only be described as an enormous conflict of interest. Fiddle Faddle 09:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are discovering is that Wikipedians are resolutely polite, and have little sympathy or tolerance for paid advocacy. You seem unable or unwilling to understand this, and do not enter into dialogue with anyone who has warned you about it, seeming to choose to plough your own furrow. It even appears that you drove a coach and horses through your short block by using another account, something that is being investigated by the correct team here.

By now you ought to have got the message that your client, however wonderful her many attributes, fails

You are, yourself, heading for an indefinite block. You may think that you can get around that by operating other accounts, and, for a short while, that may be so. In the long term all you will succeed in doing is in getting yourself a particularly bad name. That, surely, is an image a PR person can do without.

My strong advice is that you take a substantial pause from here. When you come back, if you come back, please do so with due regard for the fact that this is an encyclopaedia, not a place to puff and promote your client. Puffery and promotion will always fail. However good you think you are, if they are not notable then they are not notable. As you have seen, once we get a sniff of something amiss, we, the community, are relentless in dealing with it.

Instead of puffery and promotion, why not have fun here? Edit articles as a hobby. Hobbyist editors are always welcome. Fiddle Faddle 10:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Guinevere Van Seenus.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. GB fan 11:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracy Murdock until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Fiddle Faddle 09:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Conflict of Interest / Paid Advocacy regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 14:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PrincessKannapolis. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 14:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fiddle Faddle 14:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Timtrent (aka FiddleFaddle). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

This one is not as easy as the earlier lessons, because folks around here are super-damn-touchy about it, and have no tolerance for beginners making the mistake... although, of course, almost all beginners make this mistake, especially if they get blockerized in a way they feel is unfair. I could give you the whole history... okay that's wrong, I could give you a miniscule portion of the whole history, that I have observed or inferred, but I'll save you the pain and just cut to the way things are.

0. Socks are the Worst. Thing. Evah. Some socks are like imaginary friends

Specific to your situation.

Never forget to login as PrincessK. This is hard. If you get a new PC, or switch to a tablet, or use the library computer, or install chromium instead of firefox as your browser... you gotta login. If you forget, you can still click edit, and you can still click save, but since your PrincessK username will not be attached, you just turned into a sock.

Never let somebody else use PrincessK. Your mom, you friends, and especially your co-workers.

Nevah evah use your coworker's/friend's pseudonym... nobody can impersonate you, and you cannot impersonate anybody else.

If you are working for a company (or getting ready to start a company), and you plan to edit anything even remotely related to the industry, better disclose it right on your userpage and right on your talkpage.

Hey, I'm princessK, I'm going to film school (or went to film school), I'm getting ready to start a company in the entertainment industry (or have started said company), and I work with the following people at the company -- Mstanton617, otherUsernameYouMayHire, et cetera. We sometimes login from the same two physical locations, but we are individual humans, and we do not engage in meatpuppetry with each other's work, we coordinate with each other to keep from voting in the same places, and to keep from working on the same articles. Here is a list of our real-life clients that have paid us to do PR work for them: (empty right now... and some wikipedians do not fill this in... but are careful to use the talkpage and to state *on* the talkpage that they have COI). Here is a list of real-life contacts that we are friends with, and therefore have personal COI problems: (Kelly goes here since you have already mentioned her ... but as with paid clients this list is sometimes better left blank ... because you are going to know a *ton* of people in hollywood someday with any luck ... and rather than list them all better to just promise that you will only use talkpages for folks you are friendly with, and stick to that promise like a rock.)

Now, officially, spilling your life story, every person you ever worked with, every friend you ever had, is not required. But, now that you have made a series of mistakes, and made a bunch of experienced wikipedians (who through no fault of your own were already super-sensitive on the topic) worry that you are some hyper-megalomaniacal-evil-corporate-supergenius, there will be people who say you must put your mother's maiden name and the routing number to your bank account on your wikipedia userpage before they will trust you.

You don't have to do that. But you do have to understand that wikipedia is under stress right now. There are not enough people helping. (Many of them run for the hills after all their articles are deleted and they get perma-banned... imagine that!) But as FiddleFaddle says, this is a good place. You are smart enough and tough enough to stay, I'm reasonably convinced. But you need to decide how you can proceed safely within the hardline-socking-policy. I can advise you, but cannot decide for you. My advice is simple: only edit from one device. Never edit the same article -- and especially never vote on the same article -- as somebody who works with you, or is your real-life friend. You can both edit the talkpages of the same articles... but it is risky, you do not want to look like you and your co-workers are trying to pull

I do not recommend -- except for listing Kelly -- that you put down your real-world friends, or your real-world clients, or whatever. But for the next twelve months, recommend you tread lightly here on wikipedia, and do your best to

p.s. When you get unblocked, and are being careful, but you catch yourself doing something wrong, immediately confess right here on this talkpage. If you make some edit at the library without logging in, then notice when you get home some library IP number making comments, create a new section here on this talkpage, explain you were at the library and forgot to login, list the IP of the library-account, and then click save. Prolly you should then go back to the edit-history of the library-IP, and retroactively "sign" the library-edits with your princessK username, so nobody will be confused about talkpage-consensus or whatever, but the important part is linking your PrincessK username, to the edits you made from the library, so that you are not later (sometimes much later) accused of socking. And of course, if you make a mistake, and somebody else catches you, then just be nice, and be honest, and you'll be fine.  :-)

Hope this helps. Look forward to seeing you around. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]