User talk:Clarificationgiven

Welcome!

Hello, Clarificationgiven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Stephen lendman, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Stephen lendman

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Stephen lendman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting sources

Your removal of valid sources in contravention of WP:PAYWALL is disruptive. If you continue to do this, I will take this to WP:ANI. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source isn't working, so it's obvious that there should be another source place or the given information should be removed. Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is working. If you don't want to pay to access it, that's your problem according to policy. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prove such information can be added then?.Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] Don not ever call someone a troll, it is very uncool. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

29 June 2012

Your recent editing history at Mercenary & Libyan Civil war shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

RE:Obama United Nations Quote

Understood - I felt that it was important to have the speech because it expressed many of the ideas succintly, but perhaps it makes the article too opinionated to just hear Obama's beliefs. I will remove it from that section - do you think it has place in the "Public image" section (for expressing the Western world's view of him?), or do you think it is better to not have it any where at all?

--JSquish (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the death of Muammar Gaddafi, like i added into your talk page, that's it. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks for letting me know! --JSquish (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Asistance

Hails! I reverted last few unsourced edits and wrote message to discuss it on the talk page. If you have anything other to say or report to me, feel completely free to post it on my talk page. HeadlessMaster (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict

Sorry if this seem offensive, no hard feelings. Sopher99 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes to the pages are unwarranted because they clash with the original version while still being discussed.

I have already begun reverting these changes you made Sopher99 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note the excessive amounts of ips does in fact indicate log out time - whether you or zenithfel are responsible- Sopher99 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzdu1 and I have ferverously debated against persistence pro-gaddafi users before ( I was in fact blocked before for breaking the 3rv rule [2]) I am just concerned about your output into this. Sopher99 (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether you are solving the issue or making them worse, kudzu1 mosly vandalizes reliable sourced content just because they offend his personal likeness, 'make everything' well everything was discussed and sourced, now if you have some insecurities or personal disagreement, limit them to yourself because this isn't a personal site afterall. So hope i won't see any trouble with the content which has been added as per the rules. Clarificationgiven (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never seen an issue raised with Kudzu. What I was trying to point out is the method upon which changes are discussed. If you debate the change the article gets kept in its original format before the change, you seem to have mistook attempts to maintain that as vandalizing your edits. Sopher99 (talk)

You should take a look at it, now considering that last edit you made on the page List of modern dictators where editors such as me and others have urged to discuss in talk before editing, there you have made change without taking such steps, you haven't even provided a reason, which is against the rule, that's what point it.Clarificationgiven (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added talkpage segment to it though. For future notice you can use the neutrality template, as I myself am not quite sure as to whether the disputed segment is appropriate (I am not an admin). Sopher99 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i saw, and it will still work.Clarificationgiven (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still see edit warring here, I have placed an RfC on the topic so more of a consensus can be made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some pages, But which page you are talking about though?Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am talking about Libyan civil war, this is really close to going to the admin noticeboard to resolve this dispute. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens, i doubt if that vandalizing kid will stop or not. Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the script has been removed, what happened? Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea but please stop reverting even if you feel you are right there are places to go to resolve disputes here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Your recent editing history at List of modern dictators shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 2 reverts. Remember that at the third, you may be blocked. Please reach consensus on talk page. —Hahc 21 21:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of sources

Hi,
In this edit, you added "military retreat" to the table, but the [source you cite] does not say "military retreat". Or even "retreat". What's going on? bobrayner (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well bob, that's what the actual result was, According to the book "Dictionary of Wars, 273; Revenge in the Desert" [3], and according to the newspaper which i had cited too, hope you will re-edit it to the previous note. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:HeadlessMaster/List of rulers of totalitarian and illiberal democracies

Feel free to contribute. HeadlessMaster (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love You to Pieces

I deleted this because the author had put an explicit {{db-g7}} tag on it, and only then saw your talk page comment. If you can find sources to satisfy WP:NALBUMS, by all means re-create it; I will userfy the deleted article for you, if you like. The article author XOctoberRustx (talk · contribs) appears to be a newbie: I have given them a welcome message and pointers to WP:WikiProject Albums and WP:NALBUMS, but you might like to contact them and encourage them to do more. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i will try getting required information soon. Clarificationgiven (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:Clarificationgiven/Love You to Pieces. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reference on wiki articles

Hello Clarificationgiven! Please do not forget to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill as many details as you can,

This will add a well formatted reference that would be helpful in case the website link (web URL) becomes inactive (dead/link rot) after some time. You can read more about it on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv. thanks and regards --DBig Xray 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

to use this message place {{subst:User:DBigXray/ref}} on User_talk

DBig Xray 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i will remember it. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Clarificationgiven/Love You to Pieces has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Love You to Pieces, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens, the article is not originally by me though. Clarificationgiven (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings etc

Please be aware that while there is nothing to stop you removing content from your own talk page - as you have just done with my vandalism warning here - the act of doing so is viewed by the community as being your acknowledgement that the comment/warning etc has been noted by you. - Sitush (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Clarificationgiven. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 04:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Sitush (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR

Please stop "fixing" the spelling of articles like Thomas Henry Huxley. Wikipedia is edited by people from around the world, and numerous discussions have concluded that tolerating each other's styles is the best approach. Please see WP:ENGVAR. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justicejayant. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is courtesy message. Just to notify you that I have commented on your case and mentioned your name [4]. Tamsier (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

27 July, 2012

Your recent editing history at 2011 military intervention in Libya shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sopher99 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do have to remind you that I reverted 2 times - you reverted 3. Sopher99 (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like i have reverted back to the actual page, while you have only vandalized and removed sourced/established information, like before. Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]