User talk:AccuracyistheKey

.

Sockpuppet investigation
XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at G.U.Y. (song). We know you are a sock of Reece Leonard so cut the crap and cease to edit, else face a ban from Wikipedia — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 07:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I literally just made this account an hour or two ago. I have no idea what you're talking about, but what's listed on that page is a lie and it can't stay that way. AccuracyistheKey (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You aren't fooling anyone. Fancruft also should not be inserted on pages. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this some kind of investigation or something? What was previously listed on that page were lies unsubstantiated by the reviews on that page. It wasn't even remotely true. What I've changed it too is definitely accurate. AccuracyistheKey (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't "lies". Also, The GayUK is not a reliable source. Please don't insert that again. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was filled with lies! There's an infinite amount of positive reviews and only a few negative ones. And it said that the lyrics and production were "panned" but there are a million reviews that praise the production and the lyrics. It's just slander! It's not true! And it stated that the song was about being subordinate to s man, but it's a female empowerment anthem that deconstructs gender roles. It jut wasn't accurate, so I made an account and fixed it. And the GayUK presents the voice of queer members of the UK. That's certainly important, unless you're homophobic and don't believe that queer publications can be accurate. Fix the page back now. AccuracyistheKey (talk) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no homophobia going on. It just simply is not a professional source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not?! Because it's from a gay source?! There's no other reason. It IS reliable. AccuracyistheKey (talk) 07:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not why. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then give me a reason! You can't. It's reliable. AccuracyistheKey (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In its About section, it reads "Founded in 2011 as a blogging site"..... blogs tend not to be considered reliable sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But that review was published and isn't a blog entry, therefore it isn't a blog. Try again. AccuracyistheKey (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment As a neutral, third-party this is as valid of an outside source as this or this or this. In my view it qualifies under WP:SOURCE.  ♥ Solarra ♥  ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 08:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perez Hilton is notoriously unreliable. Us Magazine is a gossip magazine. TMZ is more reliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You will not be able to do it all day, because now you are blocked for 24h. Hopefully the SPI gets solved by then.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The SPI confirmed that you are Reece Leonard, so you are indefinitely blocked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)