User talk:Cookieman1.1.1.

From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
(Redirected from User talk:RepublicofQuebec)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Ebenthal dubious tag

Hello, could you please take the discussion to add a dubious tag to Ebenthal to it's talk page? Please state a list of your reasoning for it, otherwise your edits will be reverted. Also, you said you had contacted other administrators, who are they and have they made any statements? Flag of New Eiffel.svg/Royal coat of arms of New Eiffel.svg Zed Zarel  My Talk Page  Contribs  3:35 p.m., 5 October 2020 (UTC+1)

@Z Luna Skye: check out the talk page, I basically debunked his nation. All my reasons are there. I brought the issue up to the help desk and personally contacted Charles and even pinged him and even though he said he would handle it he hasn't. I was also told by admins in the help desk to keep the tag until they handle it and clearly nothing is getting done. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
@Z Luna Skye: Pityful campaign against me. "Debunked" by found one wrong image, oh my. We both brought this to discussion with admins and to open discussion. We both presented our points. I willingly took down the questioned image and substituted for another one with a much more detailed description just to have no further stress, and yet here you are more than a month later yet trying to take me down. I believe this makes clear that it has become personal. Your reasons are clearly personal for whatever reason. You keep a month, you moving a world, to try to take me down, you claim to have debunked Ebenthal over one image, you are making claims on lack of sources of my behalf, while you do not provide a single source on your Paloma article. If you was to be so concerned with the truthness of facts, you would care enough to provide sources for your own articles. No, instead, you are trying to debunk me over this (despite the fact that my article provide sources, just not for images). Fine then. Arthur Brum (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It isnt personal, your stuff just has no proof, like the library or the court. Fellow admin Luxor has added a dubious tag until it is dealt with. If you remove said dubious tag then your page shall be locked till such notice. We aren't playing games anymore and we dont want an another "Andany" type nation in the community. I dont provide sources to images as it isnt needed, why? Because its photos of land, and water (which contains metadata which I'd good enough). Not buildings, not security. Of course it's a beautifully written article and I'll give you that but you need sources on images that are hard to believe like the images you have presented. Have a good rest of your day. TC --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image

Might I suggest you request that image you dont want get deleted seeing how is appears next to your name on several other pages. I can delete it for you if you want--MissED the Target (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


When your mad because your bad--Iforgotmypassword (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Wanted categories

Can you please not simply create an empty page for every single wanted category. Many "categories" only appear on that list because of typos etc. Especially in cases where a category only has a single member or a very small number of members, consider moving those pages to a more appropriate category rather than creating dozens of redundant categories. ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 10:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by Tagging

Hello. If you're going to add "poor quality" tags to a page, at least have the decency to add a reason for thinking a page needs that in its discussion page. If you can't, or don't, the tag will be removed because without a reason it just looks like you're editing to get your edit count up. --Catherine of Kohlandia (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Catherine of Kohlandia: Someone sure seems defensive, but your article is indeed poor quality and a stub and needs great expansion. Practically it's a page with an infobox. It is never a requirement to give a rationale for tagging or any type of editing in general. I feel you are taking this too personally and this is only a encyclopedia and you should expect things like this to happen. Fix up the article, add more information, add a link to the legislative document or whatever to make it better. Always assume good faith, it will make editors more willing to contribute along side you instead of childishly starting the discussion as "drive-by tagging" as if I have a motivation, that's just stupid. --Cookieman1.1.1 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, I can clearly see what kind of person you are. Demands someone assume "good faith" but claims childishness and defensiveness while also completely failing to describe the page you claim was a stub. Now I know you're here to cause trouble, I'll continue to undo and edits you make to any page I've created. --Catherine of Kohlandia (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)