User talk:Clinicallytested

License tagging for File:Targeted Individuals indigo ribbon.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Targeted Individuals indigo ribbon.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy
Warning: if you continue to violate the Biographies of living persons policy by adding unsourced negative information about living persons in the Targeted Individual article, I will report the matter - which will undoubtedly result in you being blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Targeted Individuals indigo ribbon.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Targeted Individuals indigo ribbon.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sjö (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do not modify comments from other users. If you do so again, your account will be blocked immediately. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Modifying comments by other editors
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. If you modify other editors' comments further, your block will be extended and your talk page access will be revoked. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Repost of User:Clinicallytested/Targeted Individual
A tag has been placed on requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A word of advice
I suggest that you stop wasting people's time by repeatedly recreating the 'Targeted Indiviual' article - it is abundantly clear that this material will never be accepted as an article, and we don't have unlimited patience. If you wish to promote conspiracy theories, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Violations of site license
Note: You are recreating content that has an established attribution history. But using a copy/paste of that content, you are claiming all of the edits as your own. This is a violation of site license which states that all attributions must by in the article history, no matter how small.

To get restoration of the original attributions and the original text, please submit a request at WP:UNDELETE to have the material userfied. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be copy/pasting if i could undelete, but unfortunately some admin deleted it. By the way, are you sure wikipedia gives you admins the right to delete user's sandboxes? It's crazy in a way. It's just a sandbox. So now i'm supposed to "submit a request at WP:UNDELETE to have the material userfied"? Ok.
 * A copy/paste that violates copyright and sites license can be deleted regardless of which userspace it resides. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That sounds slightly crazy to me. Isn't it that all material published on wikipedia is free for all to modify and copy/paste? Anyway, the first part of the article comes from my editing.. Am i supposed to copy/paste only my part and ask the original editor to add his/her?
 * All material contributed to Wikipedia is released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL license (which is stated and linked under the edit box anytime you edit a page). These licenses allow for re-use of the material, within certain key restrictions. Among these restrictions is included that the material must be attributed to the original contributor(s) of the material. This is part of the reason every article has a "history" tab. By viewing any page history, you can see the specific contributions by each editor. However, if you do a copy/paste, that history is gone, so that limitation of the site license is violated. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: restoring the copy/paste in your user space would still be a violation. To be restored, you would need to request the article at Targeted Individual be undeleted by an admin (who can un-delete most things that have been deleted), and to then have that moved into your userspace.
 * However, there appear to be additional issues brought up at Requests for undeletion which would prevent undeletion. To get that content and related history restored, you will need to discuss over there how you plan to resolve the concerns and to eventually improve the article into something that can meet Wikipedia content requirements. Afterall, Wikipedia is not a free web-host; just because it is your user-space, does not give you free-reign to create content that does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Electronic harassment
The existing consensus on the article talk page is clearly against the addition. Continued editing against community consensus can be viewed as vandalism and result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look so.


 * If you are looking for an indefinite block, you are going about it the right way. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of idiotic conspiracy theories, and it will not become so, no matter how many times you ignore policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You disgust me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinicallytested (talk • contribs)


 * Seek psychiatric help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Clinicallytested, you seem to engaging in an WP:EDITWAR with other editors. Can you please stop, and discuss this on the talk pages of the articles in question until there's a resolution on this, or I, or some other admin, will find it necessary to block you from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There's no point in discussing with a wikipedia disgusting troll — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinicallytested (talk • contribs)

Notice of edit warring
Your recent editing history at Electronic harassment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * you win, block me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinicallytested (talk • contribs)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] You have now been blocked for edit warring. You are welcome to return when the block ends, but please do not resume this disruptive editing pattern, or you are likely to be blocked for longer periods. or indefinitely if need be. Please also note the WP:CIVIL policy, continued violation of which is also likely to get you blocked from editing. -- The Anome (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]] On review of your recent edits, I've now extended your block. given your editing of other users' comments and sustained and persistent incivility. -- The Anome (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Clinicallytested and Electronic harassment. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello, I'm Smalljim. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Fitna (film) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —S MALL JIM   15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad. Edit: english is not my first language. (Clinicallytested (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC))

Electronic harassment yet again
Given your past history, and the warning you were given when you were previously blocked (" Any more misbehavior from them, and an indefblock is on the cards") I suggest you stop trying to spin the article into something it isn't yet again. Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of delusional conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Electronic harassment. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.You have already been blocked once for edit warring. I suggest you take your proposed changes to the article's talk page. Kolbasz (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * There's no consensus on that minor edit I made. I did not affect the existing consesus which revolves around the idea that the claims of electronic harassment are products of mental illnesses. I did not cross the consensus. I would have first discussed it on the talk page if I did. Also, I only reverted twice and everytime I did point to the references on which the consensus is based on. Clinicallytested (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at [[Talk:Electronic harassment‎]] shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. LuckyLouie (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:CIRCUS. You are looking to change something that survived 5 years on wikipedia yet you are trying to make me appear as the one not respecting policies? In this case, to reach WP:CONSENSUS you are required to discuss properly: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." I told you in the edit summary what you are supposed to do: reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE. As per Electronic harassment, it is purpoted harassment, not an illness, thus why it's part of the Crime project as it has always been (since 2010). You are continously pushing an unverified point of view which means you are being disruptive. Thus, kindly avoid threatening me on my talk page and loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia. Thank you Clinicallytested (talk) 16:24, 29 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. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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. Kuru  (talk)  17:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure did. I even have the article on my watch list, so I'm familiar with the edit warring from the previous days.  If you feel that you are being harassed, you can seek assistance at ANI.  Repeatedly reverting several editors simply because you feel you are right is simply going to result in a block. The opposing position is reasonable, and you'll need to persuade the other editors that your edit is correct.  This does not appear to be something you've been successful at in the past; it may be a good idea to adjust your approach. As it is, I presume that if unblocked you would immediately resume your edit war, so there is little chance that I will undo this action.  Kuru   (talk)  18:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are so wrong. The burden to prove an edit is not on who reverts. Their opposing position is reasonable? Then why not prove it by addressing my concerns on the talk page? They can't address my concerns, thus they need to game the system (which they did successfully through you). You just condemned the victim and agreed with the perpetrators. Read again my comment at the noticeboard and address my concerns instead of blindly taking their side:


 * "Wikipedia is not a WP:CIRCUS. You are looking to change something that survived 5 years on wikipedia yet you are trying to make me appear as the one not respecting policies? In this case, to reach WP:CONSENSUS you are required to discuss properly: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". I suggested in the edit summary what you are supposed to do: reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE. As per Electronic harassment, it is purpoted harassment as per its definition, not an illness, thus why it's part of the Crime project as it has always been (since 2010) and has never been part of the Psychology project. You guys have been tagteaming in order to elude the three-revert rule which means you're WP:GAMING, and are continously pushing an unverified point of view, and all these mean you are being disruptive which is such a no-no. Kindly avoid loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia".


 * Avoid counterarguing that the longevity of something is not a good reason for suggesting they should rationally reach consensus on the talk page. My mention of the longevity is just a corollary to their aggressive pushing of an undemonstrated POV and prolonged tagteaming (WP:CIRCUS). The reason they are supposed to move on the talk age is that I stated reasonable concerns in the edit summaries. Also read again my edit summaries:


 * "as per talk page and Administrators' noticeboard"
 * "Undid revision 673653045 by SPECIFICO (talk) that's not a good reason - you need to put things in context on the talk page - I see bad faith"
 * "Undid revision 673646199 by LuckyLouie (talk) then you should reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE"
 * "Undid revision 673637942 by Dbrodbeck (talk) harassment is punishable by law - the prominent view of WP:RS is unalignment thus why it's part of the Crime project (since 2010 by the way)"
 * "Undid revision 673616699 by Kolbasz (talk) the WP:RS revolve around a purpoted crime - did you read at least the first sentence of the page? - quit this ridiculous POV pushing"


 * If you are willing to be rational addressing my concerns as I just did with yours drop a line and make sure to be equipped with some self-criticism, otherwise don't assume I have any time to play your little kafkian game on wikipedia. Clinicallytested (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Recommend extending block to indef and revoking talk page access per WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)