User talk:Accurate Nuanced Clear

YouTube
Controversial and current events like this are best sourced with formatted citations. In other words, if you want to document a statement, just give us the name, date, etc. YouTube videos are generally deleted on sight for various reasons. If you need help, add a comment to the talk page and someone will step forward and lend a hand. Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome and useful info, Viriditas... I probably won't be doing much for awhile now, though. I made the mistake of trying to contribute something to wikinews and was squashed at every step of the way - and it's exhausted me for now! However, I'm not disillusioned! Nevertheless, I can't justify any more time now away from my 'real'life!

Your info though will be excellent for when I return! So thanks again!
 * No problem. You make a really good point about how difficult it is to make edits as a newcomer.  When I first arrived here, I made some well supported edits that were instantly reverted, merely because I was using a proxy IP that had been vandalizing the site.  Thankfully, my first edits are still in the article, but it was pretty upsetting at the time.  Contact me if you need help with anything.  BTW, I'm going to probably replace the YouTube link with other sources as I can find them to keep your edits intact.  Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Egoic editing
Yes - editing is actually a fine art, requiring a good deal of humility and a desire to serve the reader. If those people deleted your edits ONLY on the basis of the IP, then that is a subtle form of egoic editing. They should have judged on the CONTENT only, rather than letting the concept that the material might have been contributed by some 'evil doer' - as though it was tainted. As it says in the Bible I think, 'out of the mouths of babes, truth can come'. In other words, if something is true, it is true no matter who actually utters it. Thanks for that with the youtube thing. I think it came from AP, though it seems AP hasn't quite got it's business model together enough to make it's video readily (/easily) available on it's site. You can see it all over Youtube, but for some reason they resist showing it on their own site! If you can dig and find it there - or an alternative news source that shows the same video - that would be great. (That was what you were talking about, right?) It's all becoming a haze lol!
 * Yes, it looks like an official AP YouTube site. I had no idea, and neither did anyone else.  I suggest we use it, although this may need to be discussed.  I've left it in the article for now, but I may review it again. Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, if it turns out this site is not authorized by AP, it will be deleted. :( Viriditas (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

youtube
out of curiosity, what are the main reasons for not using YT, anyway? (feel free to reply in pt form if easier)
 * Mostly copyright infringement concerns. See External_links and for historical purposes, check out the failed policy proposing the removal of all YouTube links.  It's acceptable on a case-by-case basis, apparently. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Talkback
Hello, I replied to your request for feedback. I hope my comments/suggestions are useful, but if you have any questions please feel free to contact me. Thanks! Chevy monte  carlo  07:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of 2012 adherents for deletion
The article List of 2012 adherents is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of 2012 adherents until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Travelbird (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not alter the header size
You can't make your section headers as big as the AfD title itself, it messes up the AfD Log for that day. Say what you hav to say; you don't need to make it so large. Tarc (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kevin Gosztola


A tag has been placed on Kevin Gosztola requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Wilbysuffolk   Talk to me  18:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

blocked for minor criticism
I've been blocked by the user Alexf simply for criticising his overzealous page-deleting.

(He deleted my page claiming that I had not said why the article was relevant, yet on the talk page I had already said that the subject of the article (Kevin G) was the author of a book about a current event - the Bradley Manning affair. So I HAD in fact explained it's relevance. So it was utterly wrong and unethical to put the page up for fast-deletion. If more was needed, why not just GOOGLE it. Why was this done? I can see no other reason than a POWER TRIP!)

It only takes a few seconds to destroy something - to create something takes much more time.

I'd like to create an article called The Wikipedia Wankers - all about the sad little club wikipedia is slowly becoming.

Pathetic. I actually worked as a journalist for a major newspaper of the stature of the NYT and I never saw such small-schlong egos as I've seen on this site.

I will waste no more time on here. I will only correct gross errors of fact from now on. I will never again create an article. FAR TOO MUCH EGO!

THIS is why there are fewer and fewer editors on this personal club of tyrants called Wikipedia.

Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Parted Magic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commercial (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) 12:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Chasing the Scream edits
Hi, I restored your deletions to parts of Chasing the Scream - I'm not sure what you meant by "colorful language" or your suggestion that I'm one of Hari's "enemies." I'm not and have only heard of him recently - in fact if you look at the Talk page on Hari's article, I sided with the people saying there is too much negative stuff there. I created the entire book article and it was approved by an admin who is well aware of all the drama. However, the plagiarism section is warranted as it is mentioned in almost every single review, is mentioned in the intro to the book, it explains why they made the audio for every source available, and it relates to the history of the book and his career overall. I finished expanding the background section, so maybe it doesn't look so prominent now. Anyway if you still disagree, then please start a discussion on the talk page. Have a great day! Wikimandia (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems more appropriate now that there is actual information about the BOOK *first*, before the stuff about the 'plagiarism scandal'. It certainly looks now less like a personal attack. I would still wonder whether the critical response to the book shouldn't be above that material, since it seems more DIRECTLY related to the BOOK than the p stuff. Latter is also already covered in entry for his bio. So why make the reader wade through that before the stuff more specific to the book? I do think its relevant that people know the p allegations when encountering the book, but I don't think its as RELEVANT as say, critical response. At least it's not the first thing - which to me is a very suspicious placement

I also think that the word 'scandal' is a wonderful word - for a tabloid newspaper. It's loaded, it's emotive. It's cheap. I wonder why you changed it. Preferable words: allegations controversy You really should think about whether that is a suitable word for an encyclopedia. I doubt others use it. Again: why do you insist on using it? That does make me wonder. (I have no idea who you are or who made the changes btw- but the emphasis of that section and the wording seemed dodgy enough for me to do one of my once-a-year wikipedia edits). Nevertheless, if you're passionate about keeping that order and that wording - I guess you have your reasons. Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Lockoutzonesydney.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lockoutzonesydney.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Sydney. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that, since your edits are clearly opposed by more than one editor, they should not be restored to the article until there is consensus established on the article's talk page to do so. Please respect WP:BRD and note that while discussion is underway, the status quo reigns. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think you OWN wikipedia, please read this!
http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853

ATTEMPT AT CONSENSUS
Dear HappyWaldo, considering that the lockout laws ARE now a major feature of the night-time ENTERTAINMENT situation in Sydney, since they entirely GOVERN *ALL* situations in which locals and internationals engage in entertainment in the traditional entertainment districts of Sydney, what is your proposal for at least MENTIONING the basics of it?

Edit warring at Sydney
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, why do you not block AussieLegend, who has just REVERTED the page AGAIN?!

=THIS is why I stopped bothering with Wikipedia before=

It's become an exclusive club of massive egos:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/11/28/wikipedias-attack-dog-editors.html

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/wikipedia-where-truth-dies-online/14963#.VaU2sV-qpBc

http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1972&start=0

http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/wikipedia-lamest-edit-wars/

I simply tried to add some useful info about Sydney - it was deleted MANY times without a decent explanation, and now *IM* banned for 'edit warring'. But what about HappyWaldo.

Yep, WP has become a little clique of people with massive egos and nothing better to do but DOMINATE others.

Well, see you all in another decade!

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Den temps.jpg


The file File:Den temps.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

These temps show the average temps in an area that has a festival of 10,000 people. The festival has temporarily ceased holding a summer festival, when these temps are relevant. It now only holds the easter version. But one day it hopes to re-start the summer one as well. I will leave it up to you. I don't have time

August 2021
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abusing multiple accounts. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. ... disco spinster   talk  21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Clearly a political decision. I did no such thing. As far as I could see I was LOGGED IN, because I certainly never want my IP address logged. I had no intention NOR NEED to use the site any other way. If I used the site without logging into my standard account, it was totally unintentional. I am willing to make a stat dec about this and swear it on the lives of my brother's children. My theory is that you don't want me to edit Malone's page and add the word "alleged". So you banned me. Censorious! Wikipedia editing has LONG been the domain of a tiny club. That's why I dont bother with it anymore and will NEVER EVER EVER give a cent and will discourage others from contributing to this little club of yours.