User talk:TimmyAU

May 2017
Thanks for your contributions to compulsory voting. Just a heads up that you will want to add some references to your new content to avoid it being labelled original research and removed. --pmj (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the discussion is at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, TimmyAU. I urge you to read it and the warnign in the section below, and understand why your edit summaries on [13 Reasons Why]] have been quite unacceptable here. they constitute personal attacks and are a form of Casting aspersions. You may not have previously known or understood this. Now you have been informed. It is not acceptable to state or imply that another Wikipedia editor is engaging in misbehavior, such as vandalism, intentionally introducing bias, or undisclosed paid editing, unless you present evidence supporting such allegations. This is, if anything, doubly true for accusations made in edit summaries, which are particularly visible, cannot be changed, and can only be removed by admin action. Do not repeat such accusations unless you are prepared to produce evidence. Discuss edits rather than the motives of editors. Comply with the bold, revert, discuss cycle rather than engaging in an edit war. Failure to take these warnings seriously will lead to consequences, possibly including loss of editing privileges. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I thank you for your patience and understandable rebuke which I consider to be both measured and appropriately stern. I unreservedly agree with your description of my drunken comments and entries, and apologise without reservation for that poor behaviour. I adore wikipedia and everything it stands for, and in reflection, appreciate the input of other users simply endeavouring (like me) to make a useful contribution. I have entered my heartfelt apology to the user who, though possibly resilient enough to ignore me, nonetheless deserves my sincere retraction. I have furthermore attempted to pick up the thread of discussion in a more thoughtful way, such that the adversely affected contributor may be enticed into considering more deeply my initial concerns which may have been foolishly distorted and poorly expressed due to my poor condition at that time when he/she modified my edits.

Thank you all for your time, effort, consideration and tolerance.

A summary of some important site policies and guidelines

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from mainstream magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Users should never make personal attacks on others. It's a good idea to avoid commenting on people, but on content, and then if necessary, actions.
 * Assume other editors are here to help as much as is possible.
 * Don't edit war. Except in cases of clear-cut vandalism, do not revert changes to a page more than 3 times within a 24 hour period.

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * As these apply to some of your behavior: this edit summary was completely unacceptable. Your user name is not your legal name either, so dismissing another editor for using a pseudonym is not only ridiculous but hypocritical.  Your accusations toward that editor of being a "marketing assistant" qualify as personal attacks (accusations without evidence qualify as personal attacks).  Your promise to check in every 48 hours to revert his edits are a promise to edit war.  It's not even standard procedure but just plain common sense, for the sake of completeness, to mention any notable production/publishing companies or famous individuals we have articles on who are involved in the creation of some piece of media.  To accuse Chaheel Riens of promoting Paramount Television or Selena Gomez makes about as much sense as accusing you of promoting Jay Asher or Netflix.
 * You don't need to apologize or anything, but you do need to think for two seconds before making accusations toward editors and removing reliably sourced content. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)