User talk:Truth, reality and justice

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Funny  Pika! 17:50, 17 January 2013 (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 could also click on the signature button or  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 they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL)
Just letting you know that I've reverted your blanking on my talk page. Comments on Talk pages are usually not removed unless they are harmful or prohibited. If you'd like to retract something, simply leave a comment at the bottom. Thanks Funny  Pika! 14:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving AfC headers
Do not attempt to hide or misplace AfC banners. They are there to help the process along. The banner was restored because it's still declined. You may re-propose it for AfC, but you are not allowed to remove previously declined AfCs until the article has successfully been approved for mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean re-propose, I won't remove the header, this was a mistake to begin with. I don't think moving it bellow is hiding it. Just positive construction. I'm finding the process now becoming the most negative and regretful experience.

I'm working on the article over time.

Its positive to have it below while I add to it, it clearly still states declined. Its not hidden.

Thanks for your help, obviously you know best.Truth, reality and justice (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm find your edits to my article going against everything that is been said by the other users. You have removed everything that has not been flagged as an issue and is of use. Links to other Wikipedia articles etc and what you have left is the material that references sources that are being questioned.

Regards Truth, reality and justice (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

BBC Radio Playlist example
The reference was removed for the following reasons
 * 1) The inclusion as 1 out of 28 tracks that were played does not confer a significant amount of notability to the artist.
 * 2) The playlist was from a recuring show, therefore it does not contribute significant notability to the artist.
 * 3) No explanation on the playlist explaining WHY the track/artist was chosen for the list.

I have undone your re-insertion of the reference as it's not appropriate. I've asked you to read WP:REF closely before making any more edits. I've tried to give you guidance at WT:AFC, the edit summaries where I am removing the content, and now here. I suspect you have a case of "I didn't hear that". That myself and several experienced editors have given you advice and you have chosen willfully to ignore it suggests that you are here only to promote the artist regardless of the purpose of Wikipedia. The next time you edit the AFC submission to add content that is patently promotional I will go to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard to get a second opinion of your behavor in context of this article submission. Hasteur (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying. To work with, I suggest you check the edit. It wasn't the play list page I added it the artist page. Again I state this wasn't the playlist and clearly you have assumed it was and removed.

I suggest your the one play I didn't hear that.

Check yourself it's in the editsTruth, reality and justice (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And clearly you don't reply to messages even tho you wrong and behaving questionably. You are quick to jump on my edits.

I'm no warring but it looks to me like someone is.

Truth, reality and justice (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So if think about it Hasteur I have not done what accused me of. I'll wait patiently on my apology from you for your assumption.

Check the undone. I never undone any of yours but worked on top. I never reverted your edit. I improved mine.

I'll make a complaint about your behaviour if you continue to bully me on wikkipedia with threats when you have assumed and then never reply.

Very sad Truth, reality and justice (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * INDENT MY FRIEND... That's funny, because when I clicked the newly added BBC page, I get only that 1 show's playlist. Your options are 2 at this point. Let the submission go, or find significantly better sources to demonstrate the subject's notability.  Each time you go in to edit the page, I to in to look at the change.  Also stop marking obviously not-minor edits as minor, per WP:MINOR.  Minor edits are supposed to be used only when the edit doesn't change the overall context of the sentence.  A spelling change would be a valid reason to use the minor indicator. Hasteur (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Read WP:REVERT specifically "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version". Your re-adding the BBC link after I removed it was a revert. Hasteur (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to apologize as I have been following the rules/policies/guidelines of Wikipedia. You, on the other hand have not.  So please feel free to go and file a complaint as it may boomerang back to you and result in the suspension of your editing privileges. Hasteur (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

On the artist page there are no connected playlist at all. So where you got that from I don't know.

Click the introducing Scotland show link and get a list of recent playlists. This is not the same page as the play list page, your assuming as looks similar. Your not checking or pretending to not check.

Your very clever, but you can't beat the truth. The playlist is not directly linked to the page and and the playlist is linked only through its date being close to the last Scottish broadcast. I've investigated this.

It's states on the artist's profile he's broadcast since 2008. On bbc introducing.

Please provide reasoning and evidence to dispute the published fact.

An example of talking about would be, there are playlists linked to page that don't contain Pollock's music.

Therefore bbc pages don't connect necessarily to playlists containing that artist. But rather to the shows website where recent list of playlists is contained. It just so happened that a show that contained one of Pollocks broadcasts was in this list. Now again this shows he broadcast in 2012 and it stats on the since 2008. Is this not enough to then link this source in the section regarding Scottish media coverage?

Please explain where I am being unreasonable.

Regards

Truth, reality and justice (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And again Hasteur it's different link from the playlist link.

Your making me sad because your pretending I connected an identical page.

I done no such thing so again I ask for an apology as I added this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/c28db782-cbd0-4b0f-8465-0d8da5074fc5

Which is not the playlist page from the 16/0412 and you prednding that I did re submit the playlist page which would be this page http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fqncv

And this what you have accused me of wrongly.

Truth, reality and justice (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * [[ again Hasteur I highlight it states on bbc playlist web page linked here http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fqncv that the music played on this show is the best unsigned, up and coming and under the radar music in Scotland.

You previously stated in your edit notes for the article Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL) that no reason for selected is given therefore source could not be used, clearly you overlooked that Hastuer. ]])

And you accused me of re inserting a removed link which I did not.

I have also provided a link to show Pollock has been. Played on bbc introducing since December 2008 and another link to show he was gaining plays in 2012.

I also note you removed the questions regarding these from your page and refuse to reply here on my talk page. Truth, reality and justice (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 08:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: Help Desk
— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  ·

October 2013
Hello, I'm Nasnema. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nasnema  Chat  00:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I See that you "Nasnema" Have undid this act and therefore returend the article back to my last edit which of course was the right thing to do, having viewd the histroy and witnessd the actual state of the article you returned it to, your claim that my contribution did not seem constructive is very missinformed, if you view the article in the state you attempted to return it to and compare it with my most recnet updates you will see my contributions can only be considered as constructive.

I find what you did to be very peculiar, did you actually have your eyes open when you reverted my eidts to the version you did?

I see no appology or auto message informing me you decided not to revert my edits as it was an awful decision.

Truth, reality and justice (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL) (October 14)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Leigh Griffiths
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Blethering  Scot  22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The material in question was as well sourced as the poorly sources and clearly biased statement "sectacular" in reference to Leigh Griffiths first celtic goal. I'll be more than happy to update my soures if you wish. There are number of reliable sources which highlight the alleged racist behaviours of the subject Leigh Griffiths 90.195.94.86 (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do not add poorly sourced material to articles on living people. Any further edits like this will result in a block. --John (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs do not make a right. --John (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Three don't make a right either.
 * I've already stated that I'll happily add additional sources from the many publicly available regarding the subject matter and his continued public acts of alleged RACIST and aggressive behaviour Truth, reality and justice (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have. I really wouldn't recommend that. Unless there is a consensus at article talk or in a central discussion to include material of this type we would not do so. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. --John (talk) 08:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a place for belittlement either. Your response was entirely unacceptable. Your opinion is only that. I'll be happy to discuss it on the article talk page, I see many agree on another discussion regarding the subject matter. It has been stated this information is relevant and it has been decided that it is matter of presentation, I note the article has been locked and concerns raised against user who attempted to edit war with me regarding the valuable information


 * You are entirely welcome to your opinions. You should be in no doubt that if you add or restore poorly referenced or non-consensual material onto a BLP again, you will be blocked. --John (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "You are entirely welcome to your opinions" I'm so pleased you have confirmed my basic rights for me. I'd never have known otherwise.

As I've said. The material will be sourced. I see that the article has fallen into the correct hands. I have no doubt the article will no longer read as a resume for the subject matter... My work here is done. Truth, reality and justice (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Could you also please read WP:NOTVAND so you do not repeat the false allegation of vandalism you made here. --John (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"Thats fine" Why thank you lord and master... You state I have made a false allegation of vandalism yet I note the page is locked and concerns raised regarding the user who initated the edit war. The article indeed now awaits the outcome of both the criminal investigation and the footballing punishment. I'm sure it will be updated appropriately as the case develops. I made no false allegation and I note the false allegation of libel made against me by the user in question, I also note the request by admin who locked the article In question to have the accusation of libel against me removed.90.195.94.86 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL) concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL), a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL)


Hello Truth, reality and justice. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ronnie Pollock (DySFUNCTIONAL)".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)