User talk:Catsandgurdies

Welcome![edit]

Hi Catsandgurdies! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warm welcome! I will check these resources out. Catsandgurdies (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Patty Gurdy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am trying to educate more people about this unique artist's career, but it is difficult to cite information due to the lack of sources with the information I need. In the future, please tell me so that I can fix the issue before deleting all of my work. Thank you! Catsandgurdies (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is designed to summarize all the literature published about a topic. If there is insufficient published material, then Wikipedia is not supposed to try and fill the gaps. Binksternet (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Binksternet! I have been furthering my research on citing, but have come across a question that I can not find an answer to. Do you know if music streaming services are considered to be an adequate source to cite? Thank you! Catsandgurdies (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say there is that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If a simple date or statistic is being cited, then probably yes. If more complex ideas are being cited, then no. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Patty Gurdy, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not mean for my editing to be disrupting. Secondly, I was unaware that to add information to the infobox one would be required to provide a citation, as much of the information currently located in the infobox does not have corresponding citations. Finally, I would be willing to discuss any further alteration of information with you or another experienced editor before editing this page. Catsandgurdies (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is supposed to be a reflection of the article. If the article has a verifiable fact, then the infobox can relay that fact to the reader. Ideally, the article will not lose any information if the infobox is removed. Binksternet (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citations[edit]

I see that you are using citations more often. This addition is good as it is a third party media source commenting on the fact. But Amazon webpages are completely unnecessary to prove existence, as are other retail sales sites.

A published musical release is like a book in that it comes from a publisher (the record label), has a title, artwork, and identifying catalog numbers. A published single or album release stands as its own fact—it does not need a cited source to support it. However, the album or single is not proved to be important enough to mention simply by the fact of its existence. Amazon web pages also fail to show its importance. The thing that proves importance is in-depth discussion in the media. See WP:SECONDARY which says the main material on a Wikipedia page must be cited to third party publications. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Annie Hurdy Gurdy[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Annie Hurdy Gurdy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 "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 deleted 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Annie Hurdy Gurdy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Annie Hurdy Gurdy 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/Annie Hurdy Gurdy 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.

PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem like a dumb question, but because I haven't been editing at Wikipedia for a long time, what exactly determines that a discussion is finished? Thanks! Catsandgurdies (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catsandgurdies. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have not created two accounts to edit Wikipedia. Mothswallow (the account claimed to be a sockpuppet) is actually my sister. Because we live together, we use the same computer and therefore have the same IP address. As for our involvement with the Annie Hurdy Gurdy article, I wrote and published it, but Maddison (Mothswallow) helped me with writing it. I didn't even realize until today that she had voted to keep the article. I am so sorry for all the confusion this had caused. Thank you Catsandgurdies (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you describe is called meat puppetry. We don't know who is sitting at the computer. That the other account commented on the AFD is not the only issue with this. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am willing to take the blame for this conflict. It was wrong for me to avoid the blame and try to give it entirely to someone else. I have enjoyed editing Wikipedia very much, and I wish to continue doing so. I have been working on many beneficial edits during my time blocked. From this point on, I promise to continue editing Wikipedia in good faith. Please let me redeem myself by allowing me to edit again. I will make sure nothing like this happens again. Thank you. Catsandgurdies (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I like Wikipedia" is not a good reason to unblock you. By the way, you don't think it's kind of weird that you're "a young writer" who lives with your 31 year old sister, who's also a writer? And she apparently had her account hacked and deleted, even though it's impossible to delete Wikipedia accounts? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I know that I have not been active on Wikipedia for some time, but I wish to make a request to be unblocked. What I did was wrong, in both misusing multiple Wikipedia accounts and denying that it happened. Everything I did was wrong and I accept this. I wish to be unblocked so that I may be a part of the mission of Wikipedia to provide useful information for all. I assure that if I am unblocked, nothing like this will happen again and I will use this account to make beneficial and productive edits only. Catsandgurdies (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:41, 25 December 2022 (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.

Perhaps a better strategy[edit]

The sister explanation isn't going anywhere. That trope is so common that there there is a humorous page about it.

If you really want to resume editing, I recommend rolling back your excuses and taking full blame. Nothing else is going to convince the administrators. You should say what you did wrong, and describe what you will do instead in the future. Don't say another word about siblings.

Friendly advice from a veteran editor who has been blocked many times. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Noa Gruman[edit]

Hello, Catsandgurdies. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Noa Gruman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Noa Gruman[edit]

Hello, Catsandgurdies. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Noa Gruman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]