User talk:HammyDoo

Welcome![edit]

Hello, HammyDoo, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Rosiestep (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello! HammyDoo, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Auguste of Thurn and Taxis[edit]

Hi,Your page moves appear at first glance to reasonable but can I ask that when you make such a move you consider two other actions as well?

Check the "what links here" link (can be found in the toolbox section on the left hand side of the page) and consider altering thoselinks so they point to the new page rather than the redirect your move hasleft behind.
Go through the article and make amendments to the name. As an example the article Princess Marie Auguste of Thurn and Taxis now refers to her all the way through as Princess Maria Auguste of Thurn and Taxis which looks a bit daft :-).

Thanks NtheP (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English name forms on English WP[edit]

Hello! Please stop moving biographical articles so that they are named with non-English versions of their names, such as Elisabeth of Denmark, Electress of Brandenburg! English = Elizabeth. Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use only English exonyms on English WP for all pre-1900 royalty. Just like Danish WP uses Danish exonyms for English royalty. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey![edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Disambiguation link notification for April 6[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Carlo II Cybo-Malaspina, Duke of Massa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cardinal and Santa Chiara

Alberico II Cybo-Malaspina, Duke of Massa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to San Pietro

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Teresa Pamphili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cardinal, Heiress and Santa Chiara

Alberico Malaspina, Marquis of Massa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Genoese and Rebel

Camillo III Gonzaga, Count of Novellara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Italian and Noble

Aldemaro Cybo-Malaspina, Marquis of Carrara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Knight of Malta

Ducal Palace of Massa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malaspina

Ricciarda Gonzaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gonzaga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Medici Villa in Poggio a Caiano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Castello, Italian, Ionic, Temple of Diana, Avenue, Influence, Brainchild, Montalbano, French Empire, Francesco I and Statesman

Duchy of Massa and Carrara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Italian, Regency, Imperial, Genoese, John Law, Provision and Malaspina

List of consorts of Massa and Carrara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Spinola and Gonzaga

Marfisa d'Este (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Knight of Malta

Sigismondo III d'Este, Marquis of San Martino in Rio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Reggio

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

duc to Duke[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#duc to Duke -- PBS (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry[edit]

Have you read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? Are you editing using several names? If so what other user names have you used? -- PBS (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has moved one or two pages in a similar way to myself. Apologies HammyDoo for having been dragged into this. Templatier (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

DrKiernan (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I come back to this. Very very confused. I have moved three pages (French nobility that is for consistency) similar to User:Templatier. I am not in the wrong. And all of the pages I created have been deleted!? HammyDoo (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

LouisPhilippeCharles, your style is too obvious. You even shake hands with your own IP sock here. Favonian (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I cant use the account for LPC hence using another account. This is truly ridiculous. months ago I had sent emails in order to be unblocked. I was declined three times since over the space of eighteen months (when I was told I would be able to appeal my ban after just 6). I would be more than happy to use FormerAccount template to emphisize that I am not just hanging around to cause problems. Quite the opposite. Half of my contributions have been deleted (against protocol as most of them had several contributions from other users but anyway). This is truly unfair. I have never denied that I have used sockpuppets and have made good contributions throughout my time here. I do not see why a trial period could not be introduced. That is only fair. Have some mercy. I beg you HammyDoo (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be repeating the pattern of behavior that lead to the blocking of your original account. You've been offered the standard offer before and failed to accept it. You also appear to have been lying about you use of multiple accounts with the interactions above. I'm sorry, but unblocking you would clearly lead to more problematic behavior; please only use your original account for future requests. Kuru (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

That is my point, the password for the LouisPhilippeCharles was lost ages ago. I have no idea what it is hence using other accounts. It is not that difficult to understand; Surely if that wasnt the case, I would do this on that page? I dont enjoy or relish looking like a fool. I have no intention to cause trouble in the slightest, I just resent not being given even the slightest chance. Several users (I have been spying) keep adding anonymous IP address as well other actual accounts saying that they are me, almost 20 in total supposed to be me when they honestly are not. I have no other way of defending myself other than trying to appeal on here. like I said, I have not even been given a chance, which is really not fair. The only problematic behaviour is this continuous begging which like I keep saying is really not fair. What would I get out of jeopardising what I enjoy doing by causing problems? I think not. Once again, I have not even been given a chance, which is really not fair. HammyDoo (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't think you have even a slightest chance to be unblocked unless you agree to WP:OFFER.

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have waited almost 18? Is that not enough? This is ridiculous. Unfair much? I am not a toddler. Give me some respect which is only fair. I will not give up. As I have said, I have waited for months. I should be unblocked for a trial period or something. If anything goes wrong (which it wont) then I willnever return. That is only fair HammyDoo (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you are still the same person you used to be, I don't know why the passage of time would, in itself, be a reason for unblocking. You don't appear to have any other reason that I can evaluate here. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You have not waited "18" months, as you make new sockpuppets regularly. I've removed your right to edit this talk page because you're making repeated futile unblock requests. Spend six months without any sockpuppetry and then try for a unban. DrKiernan (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]