User talk:Jaybrannan

February 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 09:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

it was completely on purpose, see the article's discussion page.

although i'm sure you don't care at all about what it says.

jay

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 10:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. - &#10032; ALLSTAR &#10032; echo 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 10:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

look i dont know how to use this stupid site and i dont want to learn. i can't compete with all the crazy control freaks on here. someone please stick up for me and get this thing deleted. i haaate wikipedia!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jay

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. &mdash; slakr \ talk / 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with your article, please see Biographies of living persons. Continued blanking of the page will not result in getting the article deleted. It will only result in you getting blocked from Wikipedia. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

i already read that page and it offers nothing. i don't have months of my life to discuss and debate with all the crazy people on here. i like how you even call it "my" article, yet i have absolutely no say in anything. ironic.

how does it feel to be obsessively guarding a wikepedia article about someone who hates you? :)

Open Ticket Request System
The OTRS system is how you address issues relating to objectionable content in an article about you. If you are indeed the subject of the article, you can make a request through the OTRS system to have the article modified, protected or deleted. Your request will be reviewed and action may or may not be taken based on your complaint. See WP:OTRS for more information. Avruch talk 16:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with an article about yourself (some plain direction)
This information comes from another page, the biographies of living persons policy. A direct way to establish your identity would be for you to so that we can verify your information. It's unfortunate, but there have been people impersonating others on Wikipedia before, so this is a necessary precaution.

Alternatively, you could discuss your concerns at Talk:Jay Brannan, the article's "talk page." That way, a consensus among all the editors working on the article can be achieved as to how the article will appear. We want every article here to be accurate, neutral, and reliably sourced.

I'm really sorry that you've had a sucky experience here so far and I'm happy to help you in any way I can. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. (As an aside, I quite enjoyed Shortbus. It was amazing.)

Sincerely, SSBohio 05:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your article
Hi there, saw you complained about the photo of the article about you. Why do you think you own it? It seems someone else took it at one of your concerts, and if you appear in public people are allowed to take photos of you and publish them as well as they are allowed to write about you on the internet. It's the downside of fame. If there is anything wrong with your article just let us know on the discussion page, hopefully people will correct the article. If not, at least your fans will see what you write and believe you. It tends to be more convincing if you write politely, even if it might be hard. Hope one day you will sing in Berlin? Barcovelero (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

August 2009
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

--how is it fair that only people completely removed from the subject of an article with no actual knowledge of that person are the only ones allowed to (falsely) edit the article?

and someone who IS the person, and wants to help make an accurate portrayal of (myself) in the face of those injecting their own political biases and misinformation -- is not permitted to do ANYTHING?!

this site is so screwed up

jay
 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]]I understand that it must be very frustrating to find an article on yourself that has content you do not feel is accurate, but the proper way to address these types of problems is to use the article's talk page to discuss the issue. Without any reliable sources discussing your "feud" with the persons who wrote this article, such content simply does not belong in the article. Even in the case of an article about you, you do not own the article. The good thing is that unlike a newspaper or magazine article, Wikipedia articles are always able to be changed if problems are found, and if you could identify specific problems with this article I'm sure it could be resolved. If discussion on the talk page is not productive, consider initiating a request for comment on the talk page in order to bring in more users and establish a consensus for what form the article should take. For information on why it is considered a bad idea to write about yourself, see WP:AUTOBIO. In a nutshell though, it is generally very difficult to be neutral when discussing yourself and you accomplishments. Most Wikpedia articles are in fact written by users who are not closely connected to their subjects in order to provide a neutral point of view. In any event, airing your objections to the article in the article itself is not the proper way to go about making the appropriate changes. Thanks! --Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---i have done that over and over and over, but Wikipedia is run by psycho control freaks (like yourself it seems), so no one ever ever ever accepts my changes, no matter how major or minor

this site is NOT an encyclopedia, in fact is EXACTLY the opposite. it is a source of pure mythology and weirdness, and i hate it.

please please please delete my article, i have an actual life and career and DO NOT HAVE THE TIME for this sick protocol and craziness

pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease get me off Wikipedia!!!!

jay

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Jay Brannan. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Zhang He (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

--its not unconstrunctive, its very relevant!!!!

you people are soooooo psycho, jesus christ

its like a cult around here

jay
 * If you would like to stop making accusations and identify specifically what you feel is wrong with the article, I would be happy to try and help you resolve this. However, what you are doing now is edit warring, and it's only going to lead to you being blocked again, which won't help resolve this issue at all. Please simply state what you think is wrong with the article and I will do my best to correct it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

-- i have done that over and over, and it constantly helps and i dont have the time that you have to stay here and check on it all the time

and as the latest example, i feel my public distaste with wikipedia is very relevant to my article here

but you keep deleting it because you think you are jesus

and then you tell me to bring up my concerns on the "discussion" page --- which you promptly "archived" right after i did so

this is crazy behavior, am i the only one who sees how cultish and weird this is?

pleeeease delete me from this site!!!!!! please!!!!!!!!!!!
 * Please just click here and edit the section to identify the specific problems with the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

---i cant believe this

i am trying to comment on the discussion page as you told me, and now "zhang ye" simply keeps deleting my contribution to the discussion

this is unbelievable

i give up

the wikipedia cult wins again

jay
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to archive your recent remarks on the talk page, we must have "stepped" on each other, but if you want anyone to actually help with this, you should stop being so insulting. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

-- i'm not the one being insulting

you try battling the shit i have read about myself on wikipedia for the past...3 or 4 years?

i cant wait til you have a wikipedia article and you can see how horrible it is to watch other people try to control you, and pass it off as an "encyclopedia" article

this is unbelievable. i cant stand this site.

i just want to make sure that everyone knows i have tried, even if you delete my presence from the world altogether.

--Jaybrannan (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jay, if you wish to have the inaccuracies you see in the article's current form corrected, please be specific with your concerns. If you do not wish to do so on-site, feel free to email me your concerns and I'll do what I can (time permitting) to address them. -- auburn pilot  talk  02:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here  06:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)