Thanks! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Supremacy MMA, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Supremacy MMA is the first mixed martial arts video game to have female fighters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Supremacy MMA.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

((help me)) Would someone kindly organzied my userboxes into a nice straight vertical line alligned right? I do not know how to do that. Thanks! Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is OK. See Template:Userboxtop. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  16:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes that works out nicely. Have a nice Thanksgiving! --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to ProElite 3 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
You cannot copy/past material from cited references and put them into articles; that is a copyright violation and against Wikipedia policy. You should write the information in your own words and then cite the source. TreyGeek (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partially quoted text with references to the site is not a copyright violation. Read any scholarly book and you will find quotations and footnotes. Only if the text is quoted in its entirety or if multiple full paragraphs are copy and pasted with no citation would be a CV. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COPYVIO in regards to what Wikipedia considers to be copyright violations. Specifically note, that Wikipedia policies state "[e]ven inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation". It doesn't matter whether you copy one sentence or the full article. It is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have no desires to be adversaries, as you agree on my talk page. However, everyone on Wikipedia should follow it's policies and guidelines if they wish to be editors here. If you are unfamiliar with those policies and guidelines, perhaps you should read up on them before editing. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. That seems to mean that we cannot copy and paste an unattributed sentence, but if it is in quotation marks and is footnoted, it is okay. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you put the copied text in quotes and cite the reference, then technically it is okay. However, it is preferable that editors write information in articles in their own words and cite where the facts came from. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You have me a bit confused. The edits you reverted were written partially in my own words and partially in quotation marks. Anything paraphrased or quoted in quotation marks from the two different articles I used were also cited in footnotes to those articles. I cite two different sources using the refence templates and mix some of my own words/paraphrasing with quoting in quotation marks. Nowhere do I copy and paste anything that is not in quotation marks and that is not cited from one of the two USA Today articles in the notes. Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is this text here that was copied from the USA Today article without quotation marks.

Other instances appear to be in quotation marks but it is hard to tell because there are WP:LONGQUOTED text that makes it hard to tell where it starts and stops. Much of the paragraph that was added equates to a WP:QUOTEFARM. This issue can either be bickered over ad nauseum or someone can simply rewrite the text such that it is more encyclopedic. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification; however, if you look more carefully at the text you cite, the way I actually had it it does indeed have quotation marks "" and a citation from what was reverted: Also in the main event, "Kendall 'Da Spyder' Grove continued his attempt to re-establish himself as a middleweight to be reckoned with by beating another grizzled veteran on Saturday."^[1] Please note that the first part of the sentence is in my own words, then I use quotation marks and provide a footnote. Sure, I could probably be a better writer and paraphrase even more, but the example you reference was in quotation marks and annotated. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay,I was confused by the double/single quotes around the nickname for Kendall Grove and trusted too much on the duplication report. I suppose I have no real excuse at this point. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sweat it! Any predictions for tonight's fights on FOX? --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I don't think you can remember me, but we both voted Keep for the ProElite articles. I am here to ask you if you could go to the AfD page for this event and vote. If you look into the event, it meets the same, if not more, coverage as the ProElite pages and for this reason I voted Keep. The SFL is India's first MMA Promotion, and their upcoming event this weekend will mark the first MMA event to ever happen in India. Prior to the fights Jennifer Lopez, LMFAO and many other famous music acts will perform prior to the event to gain an audience and then they can stay to watch the fights after it, which will be headlined by James Thompson and Bob Sapp. There are dozens of articles out there on this event but please take the time to research these and vote for whatever you believe it should be. BigzMMA (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked 2 weeks for sock puppetry. --MuZemike 11:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here)) below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, while I acknowledge that I, like many, have made the occasional edit logged out, I absolutely am not operating any other "accounts" as the block claims. I suspect that the disputed edits are on my shared school IP, but I want to make it clear that I do NOT have any alternate accounts. Second, I apologize if any of my edits were problematic. Third, I pledge to be more careful in the future. Fourth, I am an article creator and picture uploader with many good edits and wish to continue focusing on those areas. I appreciate the reconsideration. If nothing else, please at least make it clear that the issue was some IP edits logged out and not as is erroneaously being interpreted by some as if I actually am operating other "accounts".

Decline reason:

"Abusing multiple accounts" is probably the wrong wording, but it really doesn't matter, as attempting to give the impression of being two different people is equally unacceptable whether done by using two accounts or by sometimes editing without being logged in. "I apologize if any of my edits were problematic" is disingenuous: it is perfectly clear that you were acting with the full intention of deceiving. "I pledge to be more careful in the future" is completely off the point: it is not a question of being careless (except perhaps that you were not careful to hide what you were doing) but a question of deliberate dishonesty. "I acknowledge that I, like many, have made the occasional edit logged out" is downright dishonest. You have not made the "occasional" edit while not logged out: you have made a systematic series of edits while not logged out, alternating with some edits while logged in. Frankly, this unblock request is an insult to the intelligence of any administrator considering it: do you think we are stupid enough to assess unblock requests without checking the history first? Naturally, there is no question of accepting the unblock request, and I have thought long and hard about whether to increase the block length, because of the clear indication in this request that you have no intention of ceasing the dishonesty that led to the block. I have decided that the answer is "yes": your block will be reset to twice its original length. I strongly suggest that, when the block expires, you rethink your approach, or you may well be blocked indefinitely. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 16 March 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.

Hello, Temporary for Bonaparte! You can add the new userbox for the Royalty & Nobility taskforce, ((User WikiProject Royalty and Nobility)), to your userpage! - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeanne-Françoise Valliccioni 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/Jeanne-Françoise Valliccioni 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. Surtsicna (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]