Jump to content

User talk:Accura9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Accura9, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


CS1 error on The Woman in the Window (2021 film)

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Woman in the Window (2021 film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on A. J. Finn

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page A. J. Finn, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: End of Story (novel) (July 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Accura9! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: End of Story (novel) (August 3)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Alyo was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
You need to show coverage in independent, reliable sources. Book reviews would be a start.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Alyo (chat·edits) 19:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your A.J. Finn edits

[edit]

I'm asking you to review the Wikipedia:Etiquette guidelines, and WP:PROMOTION, which makes clear that Wikipedia is not "a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." The inclusion of publicly available and well-documented information about an individual is not wrong just because it may present that person in a negative light. Reverting edits of mine made elsewhere on Wikipedia just because you have a strong POV about the A.J. Finn article does not help to make your case. --siriaeve (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, here and elsewhere, focus on sensationalist information, which violates Wikipedia policies. You repeatedly introduce negative edits to Wikipedia pages of persons you appear to dislike (often having something to do with Ireland). The passages you *repeatedly deleted* in this page were well sourced and objective. If you wish to edit the page, please add information, even if it is the sensationalist information you focus on, without deleting the objective information added by others. Wikipedia is a volunteer community and you should improve, not destroy, the hard work of others. Accura9 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they do not. I'm not sure why you are assuming I make edits about people whom I dislike, as opposed to people about whom I became curious as a result of news stories or reading about them in other places. Cherry-picking from my contributions to Wikipedia over a period of several years is hardly fair or reasoned. I'm also not clear what my being Irish has to do with anything? You have accused me in various places on Wikipedia of being sensationalist, threatening, and destructive. This is over-the-top rhetoric. Please stop. siriaeve (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain: You accused me of acting in bad faith and I looked at your editing history. It was my impression that you have introduced trivial, sensationalist information to several Wikipedia articles, often relying on tabloid sources including gawker. It was also my experience that when one attempts to correct you in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia, you quickly reverse the changes. This makes Wikipedia worse, not better. That's just my opinion, and you don't have to agree with it. I do not know whether you are Irish or not, and it does not matter. What I said was: "You repeatedly introduce negative edits to Wikipedia pages of persons you appear to dislike (often having something to do with Ireland)." Why did I say this? You took over the page of a young female Colombian footballer and you made it all about a negative incident involving Ireland's women's national football team. That's not balanced and it violates Wikipedia's polices on BLPs. When I noticed this, I tried to fix it by making it less sensationalist. You promptly blocked my edit. Are you not concerned about the safety of this young individual? You are free to act as you wish, but please do not accuse me of being over-the-top. We clearly have different editing philosophies and that's fine. I am not trying to change your editing philosophy and I am not interested in having an argument. I wish you all the best. Accura9 (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely did not "take over the page of a young female Colombian footballer"—I added in a brief paragraph about a high-profile incident to do with the World Cup which literally made both national and international news headlines for a number of days. That's not sensationalism. Accusing me of somehow having sinister intentions towards the person in question is so ridiculous that I cannot believe it's an accusation you're making in good faith. All of this is also beside the point, because I do not think the heart of the issue here is your concern with my "editing philosophy." The key thing here is that you're upset that I included information on the A.J. Finn page that readers may not think reflect well on its subject, and removed language that read like it was trying to puff up/promote the subject. That's the issue. siriaeve (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way you twist my words repeatedly calls into question your objectivity further. Please take a look at what I wrote above. You will see that I did not accuse you of having "sinister intentions" toward the young female Colombian footballer. Why make up an accusation of "sinister intentions"? I do think, and I did say, that you introduced sensationalist information that rendered the article about her unbalanced. And you were not interested in working collaboratively to improve it, but, instead, just reversed my constructive edit. Regarding sensationalism, I quote from the Wikipedia policy on BLPs:
Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
Again, I am not interested in having an argument and I do not think it's productive to continue this discussion. I wish you all the best and I am sending positive energies your way. Accura9 (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Sending positive energies" is passive-aggressive nonsense.
You wrote "Are you not concerned about the safety of this young individual?", and I can think of no way to read that other than you intending to imply that my Wikipedia edit was in some way recklessly putting her in danger. I'd call that imputing sinister intentions, yes. I'm not twisting your words. I'm reading them closely and carefully.
Again: your key issue with me is the A.J. Finn article. That's it. That's why you started this. To frame me as some kind of agent provocateur inciting people to violence because I pointed out that a mid-list thriller writer has admitted to lying to people repeatedly is over-the-top. siriaeve (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to believe in "positive energies" and I'm sorry you find that to be "passive-aggressive nonsense". I disagree with your editing philosophy, which I find sensationalist and non-collaborative, but I certainly did not call you "some kind of agent provocateur inciting people to violence". I don't know anything about you. Those are your words and your edits to the Daniela Caracas page are your responsibility. I tried to improve that page and others and you blocked my constructive efforts. I wish you all the best. Accura9 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My words are my responsibility, it's true. Yours are disingenuous, and that's on you. siriaeve (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at A. J. Finn 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Accura9. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page A. J. Finn, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Nat Gertler, and I am aware of this policy. I am glad that you share a commitment to accuracy on Wikipedia. Accura9 (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Accura9 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: ). Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at A. J. Finn. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:End of Story (novel)

[edit]

Hello, Accura9. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "End of Story".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 00:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Accura9&oldid=1245121303"