User talk:Tranquility of Soul

Tranquility of Soul, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Tranquility of Soul! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tranquility of Soul! Thank you for your contributions. I am CogitoErgoSum14 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SheZow[edit]

Category:SheZow, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off creating new TV categories unless they are likely to have dozens of entries in them in the near future and/or they are likely to have at least a few entries that are not "reachable" by links within the articles themselves. For TV shows that are likely to have a large number of related articles, consider creating a "navigation template" (like this one) to put at the bottom of each related page (do not do this for shows with only a few articles, like SheZow). If the discussion above ends as "keep" you can probably take that as a "green light" to resume creating categories for "small number of related articles" TV shows. If it closes as "no consensus" then you should not assume that such categories are okay. Of course, if it closes as "delete" that will be a pretty strong message that such categories are not okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bo (Lost Girl), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional American people by franchise[edit]

Category:Fictional American people by franchise has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Mayor West, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. STATic message me! 23:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Hi, I noticed a couple of your category additions, specifically this one and just wanted to give you a heads-up that it should be clear from the article's prose why the category was added. So if an article doesn't mention "Man of Action Studios", it would be helpful if you could also add some prose content to flesh out the article. This also will help other editors be able to distinguish in-earnest edits from wanton vandalism. Just a thought, thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make trivial categories like "Incorporeal undead".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional liches[edit]

Category:Fictional liches, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Creating categories such as "fictional liches" is clearly disruptive. All liches are fictional. Also, stop marking all your edits as minor - many of them are not. Thank you, Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Psychonaut. Your recent edit to the page Template:Color topics appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional portrayals[edit]

Category:Fictional portrayals has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dungeons & Dragons in popular culture, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DLC and Tiny Tina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. czar ♔ 14:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image you added to the article "My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom"[edit]

I just want to let you know that I removed the image File:Tara Strong cosplay Twilight Sparkle at Canterlot Gardens 2012.jpg that you added. The image is certainly useful, but it will soon be deleted. It was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, which only accepts free content, but the picture is not free content. You can help by looking for a free picture (try Flickr) and uploading it to Commons. If you have any questions, talk to me or ask for help. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/CensoredScribe, 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.

SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_sock_of_User:CensoredScribe[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the use of multiple accounts in violation of Wikipedia policy and to evade blocks; your editing pattern makes it very, very clear that you are User:CensoredScribe. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=This block is unjustified for the following reasons: #1 I am Tranquility of Soul and not this "CensoredScribe" that am being accused of. #2 I had no prior knowledge of "CensoredScribe", his/her actions, etc. before being blocked. #3 I've recently started editing on Wikipedia, with Traquility of Soul being my only account. #4 If I have done something to deserve this block, it should be legitimate reasons other than being falsely accused of being "CensoredScribe". #5 What can I do to rectify this mistake and/or prove that I am not "CensoredScribe"? --Tranquility of Soul (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your unblock request is not formatted correctly. I can help you with that if you want but I would advise removing this request and constructing another that conforms to WP:GAB. The request as presented will almost certainly be declined. Tiderolls 16:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I gave you bad advice. You should address the blocking/banning issues from your original account. I do not see way way that a blocked sock will be unblocked. Tiderolls 16:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing pattern exactly matches the behavior of CensoredScribe - the behavior that, as it happened, got him blocked: the mass creation of "Fictional (X)" categories for largely non-notable intersections, and the mass placing of articles on fictional characters in inappropriate categories. It's possible that another user with the exact same editing pattern would appear, created when there was a discussion of CS being topic-banned from categories, and then showing a very close correlation of activity to CS's blocks, however it's highly implausible that this combination of activity would occur without the account showing this activity being operated by CensoredScribe, at first as a sockpuppet to evade scrutiny and later for block evasion. I'd like to assume good faith that your statements above are true and unblock, however the overwhelming evidence makes that impossible to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What legitimate options are available in resolving/disputing this mistaken identity? How can I defend myself against the claim of being someone else? Apologies if my edits were considered more harmful then helpful. I should be help accountable for my own actions, and not due to the actions of another user. --Tranquility of Soul (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can reformat your unblock request so that it will appear in the proper category. However, I'm being honest in telling you that it is highly unlikely that you will obtain the result you desire as it is practically impossible to prove the negative. An appraisal has been made using behavioral evidence; I concur with the conclusion of the blocking administrator. Again, go to your original account and request advice there regarding your return. I probably will not respond to any more posts here that rehash the same rhetoric. Tiderolls 19:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFC notification[edit]

Due to your editorial involvement in {{Peter_Pan}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Shades of magenta[edit]

Template:Shades of magenta has been nominated for merging with Template:Shades of violet. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. p b p 22:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]