MarkAlexisGabriel

Welcome!

Hello, MarkAlexisGabriel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! A8UDI 02:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tori amos 2009.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tori amos 2009.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media 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 taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images 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 our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, The Road Chronicles

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, The Road Chronicles. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Abnormally Attracted to Sin. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Abnormally Attracted to Sin - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Eastmain (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Road Chronicles and others

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are The Road Chronicles, Goodbye Girl's Electric Band. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to the relevant discussion pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Road Chronicles for The Road Chronicles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodbye Girl's Electric Band (Tori Amos song) for Goodbye Girl's Electric Band. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Catalouging Tori songs on Wikipedia

Unfortunately, this is NOT the place for that. There are a group of fans working on creating a Tori wiki; that is an appropriate venue. Not Wikipedia where few Tori songs bear any relevance to the masses or have any sort of citeable notability. You may find my AfD-ing some articles of yours unbecoming; however, as the GGEB AfD page shows, your goals and the goals of the most of us (and the encyclopedia in general) differ quite a bit.Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I know all about the "fan wiki". I'm the one who began mention of it. In either case, I'll just stick to updating the albums on here. Thank you for your time (and patience). Mark-Alexis Gabriel

Re: Thanks for the compromise

You are welcome for the compromise, and thank you for not taking my edits so personally. I remember when I started out as a Wikipedian, I would be hurt/dismayed by edits, but I quickly learned that they were not to be taken personally-- rather they were made to improve the overall quality of the article in question.

I haven't had a chance to take a close look at the Midwinter Graces article yet, but you have done a great job compiling info and sources for Abnormally Attracted to Sin article. I particularly like the critical reception section, so 'job well done'! =)

Thanks for the compliments on my edits/changes. I strive to make articles concise and flowing. Some of my "babies" are the Boys for Pele article and the Tori Amos discography list. Cheers! --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Boys for Pele

Of course you can contribute. Anyone can contribute. I'm well aware that there's plenty more info out there on the album, I just haven't had the time lately to go search for more to include. (If you look at the article's history, you'll see that I haven't made any significant contributions to the article in quite a while. A lot has happened in life to keep me from delving into the article further.) My ultimate goal with the article is to nominate it for Featured Article status (it would be the first one of any of the Tori-related articles to achieve such a feat), so please contribute what you think is truly encyclopedic and pertinent, and for which you can provide a valid source.

I didn't read through all of your blog post yet, but I did skip down to the section on "Doughnut Song" (my favorite song on the album and one of my all-time favorite songs of hers) and it's interesting that she said, "I think one of the most important lines in the entire record for me was, “You told me last night you were a sun now, with your very own devoted satellite. I’m happy for you, and I am sure that I hate you; two sons [suns] too many; too many able fires.”" because that's the line that spoke to me the most, and that I believe is the essence of the album. Looking forward to reading your contributions. =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Nightofhunterscover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Nightofhunterscover.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Night of Hunters

Hello MarkAlexisGabriel. I've been enjoying working with you on the article for the upcoming Tori Amos album, Night of Hunters. Thanks for helping to keep out non-encyclopedic info and all other stuff.

Just to clarify one of my edits, I moved the 'touring' section out from under the 'Background' section to give it its own section, as per the articles on most of Amos' other albums. I wasn't understanding how a tour to promote an album after its release could be included in a section devoted to the album's background, involving its inception and creation. Perhaps as more information is released and the article begins to take shape, everything will fall into its right place. =) --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia's 3RR.

You need to review Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. You have now reverted edits a fourth and a fifth time within 24 hours, a violation of Wikipedia policy. You should discuss issues on Talk:Night of Hunters rather than revert against policy. 99.192.60.38 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is such a thing as an acoustic instrument

From the Acoustic music page: "Often a microphone is placed in front of an acoustic instrument which is then wired up to an amplifier." From the Classical guitar page: "It is an acoustic instrument." If you google "acoustic instrument" you get over one million hits. The idea that there is no such thing as an acoustic instrument is absurd. 99.192.58.167 (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Format for talk pages

You might want to check out how to format your contributions to talk pages. Firstly, when responding to a comment, you do not need to start a new section. Just hit "edit" on the section that exists and add your comments to the bottom of the existing section. Secondly, be sure to indent your comments by one more level than the one before. You do this by putting as many colons (":") before your paragraph as you want spaces indented. So if you are replying to a comment that starts with three colons, start yours with four. (If that explanation was not clear, just check any Wilipedia talk page with extended discussion and click on "edit" on one of them and look for the colons at the start of paragraphs. Thirdly, you always must sign your comments on talk pages. The way you do that is just put four tildes ("~~~~") at the end of your text. Wikipedia will automatically add a signature for you when you do that. (After writing a comment, put your four tildes and then hit "show preview" and you should see the signature as it will look when added.) For me, the four tildes translates to this ---> 99.192.87.117 (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please correct link to disambiguation page

When you edited the Jessica Lange article, you added a link to Congo, which is a disambiguation page rather than an article. If you know from the source material whether it's referring to the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, could you please edit your link to point to the appropriate page? Most common usage referring to the country simply as "Congo" is about Republic of the Congo, not the DRC, but I didn't want to assume that in this case since you're probably more familiar with the topic. Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:JESSICATITUS.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JESSICATITUS.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:LangeinKong.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LangeinKong.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Jessica lange.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jessica lange.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:JessicaLange1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JessicaLange1.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:JESSICA SWEET.0.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JESSICA SWEET.0.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:LangeCongo2.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:LangeCongo2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jessica Lange

I see you are a fan of Lange, which I sympathise with, but statements such as "I like the lead" do not really make the lead good in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. And I hope you are aware that the article is not owned by you, so your personal preference does not matter as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

I spent half an hour to copyedit it and all of its mistakes, the huge amount of POV and redundancies. I added several films which were not mentioned and toned down the fan-led stuff. And there are many more such instances throughout the article which I am willing to take care of.

If you still "like the lead" the way it was before, then I don't mind taking it to WP:DRN where other editors express their opinions about it. Until then, I request that you respect the hard work I've done and do not engage in an edit war, as you have in the past. Thank you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is in need of a major copyedit. Some portions of it are just really poorly done, and it has a lot of POV and little sources. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JessicaLange2009.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JessicaLange2009.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Jessica Lange shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your last two edits

[1] and [2] → Were those edit summaries really necessary? --MuZemike 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Jessica Lange

First of all, read WP:NPA which you have violated beyond imagination. I'm going to report it. Second, I see you've done the majority of the work on this page. And that's the problem. The article is terrible, it reads like a fansite. And my edits stand and will stand even if you don't like it because they go in accordance with policy as opposed to you, so you saying that will leave it for now does not make sense. And you do not own this page, even if you were the sole contributor to it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

And you have now been blocked for 3 days because of your constant harassment of others. As if [3] and [4] were bad enough, [5] is completely unacceptable here. --MuZemike 12:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice for ANI report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see: User:MarkAlexisGabriel and socks redux. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Your recent editing history at Jessica Lange shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Both λόγος and Blake Burba have been reverting edits I've made that are consistent with several other entries of the same type of the page in question, i.e. the Jessica Lange page. I have provided my reasons/arguments in the talk page, even quoting from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and yet they continue to gang up on me and undo my edits without providing a justifiable reason other than "consensus". Not many people edit the Jessica Lange page so there is no real consensus. Please review my edits. In the past I have been unwilling to "talk" things out but recently I have been trying to be fair and constructive in my edits, aquiescing whenever I find that the overriding opinion serves the page better. In this case, I feel my edits are both productive and consistent with what is found on Wikipedia and that undoing these revisions does not serve the page better but makes it less informative and less consistent with what is found on Wikipedia. Other pages of a similar nature to reference: Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Susan Sarandon, Sissy Spacek, Sally Field, Diane Keaton - and there are several others. Again, my revisions to the Jessica Lange page are consistent with the content found on the aforementioned pages. If these revisions are going to be undone, then the aforementioned pages should be re-edited for the sake of consistency. From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:

When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.

MarkAlexisGabriel (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring on Jessica Lange. Your edits were not undoing vandalism or removing BLP concerns or copyvios. Discussion on the article talk page does not give one a pass to continue edit warring. In effect, you have not addressed the issue which resulted in this block. Tiderolls 02:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

To be clear, this is the last chance. Next time you're caught socking, you will be blocked for much longer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing with the same disruptive editing as before, via more than one account and several IP addresses, over a prolonged period. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Please note that, as long as this account is blocked, you may not edit Wikipedia. Evading the block, either by using another account or by editing without using an account, is unacceptable. Requesting an unblock of this account is the only acceptable route if you wish to edit again. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MarkAlexisGabriel for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

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/MarkAlexisGabriel, 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.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked and accused of sockpuppetry, which I have admittedly engaged in in the past under this account. However, for the past two years I have been trying to make useful contributions to the Jessica Lange and Jessica Lange filmography pages, both of which continue to be periodically vandalized with factual and grammatical errors by various anonymous IP addresses and most recently by the registered user Tweny13, who has continued to provide superfluous, unintelligible, inaccurate and downright false information. Not having been - and still not - completely knowledgeable in Wikipedia rules and regulations, I foolishly continued undoing and re-editing revisions that contained factual and grammatical errors under this account without adhering to the proper steps for reporting vandalism. I was blocked several times and finally gave up on this account. I recently opened a new account by the name of MarkAlexisB in order to make registered edits to the Jessica Lange filmography page, which has been edited by Tweny13 to purposefully contain several factual and grammatical errors. Although I followed the proper procedures under my new registered profile, making edits which included notes and references, Tweny13 continued to undo my revisions without correcting the mistakes I corrected. Finally, he reported me for sockpuppetry. My revisions were subsequently reverted and my new account blocked. I would like to point out that Tweny13 has not corrected any of the grammatical and factual errors I edited out of the Jessica Lange filmography page. This user does not care about maintaining the encyclopedic integrity of this page, but rather continues to make edits that make the article convoluted and confusing to read, as a proper review of his edits and revisions will show. I would like to be unblocked and also be allowed to make constructive contributions to this page and others without being harassed and without having this underhanded vandalism continued any further. Please advise. I plan on escalating my complaints as far up as I can go if this is not addressed. MarkAlexisGabriel (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Any unblock request that disparages, or discusses the edits of others instead of their own actions will automatically fail. Indeed, using your bad faith assumptions about their edits are the root of your entire realm of problematic behaviours. You may never edit war even if you think you're right - EVER. Since a block applies to you, the person, creating new accounts once blocked is a cardinal sin around here - it shows you have little respect for the community, and its editors (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment

I believe I have learned a lesson, no less have other contributors who had the privilege to "work" with you. You have no respect for any other individual and for any matter else, but you and your self-destructive obsession with JL, and you have no sense what so ever for a neutral point of view as clearly obvious. For the past two years, you keep posting a content exclusively reserved to herself, her awards and accolades so forth and so on. You were told a hundred times there is an article featuring such list with full details, and yet, you keep exhausting her additional articles with your countless totals of her awards in each possible section, just the same way as you keep creating your new and new "alter egos", filling all her articles with your own "rave reviews", adding irrelevant templates such as e.g. Infobox comedian awards, etc. As a matter of fact, your tiresome edits rather disrupting than contributing, they all make public dislike the woman actually than the other way around. This is not her fan page, some of us are also trying work around. My advice to you, get a life as soon as possible because you keep wasting your time, so much of those who have a real job to do. For what it's worth, I myself would not recommend to unblock you ever, my formal friend. Tweny13 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of John Philip Shenale for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Philip Shenale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Philip Shenale until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)