User talk:CreativeFlesh93

Welcome!

Hello, CreativeFlesh93, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 02:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Steven Tyler, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR at Andy Ngo

Hi there, you may not be aware, but Andy Ngo is currently under WP:1RR - per WP:BRD rather than edit warring your preferred version back in, you should go to article talk to discuss. Simonm223 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeFlesh93, as Simonm223 has noted above, the Andy Ngo article is under a 1-revert restriction. You must go to the talk page to discuss your desired changes. Further edit warring will lead to a block. Please ensure you have reviewed TonyBallioni's message regarding Discretionary Sanctions in the section above as well as they apply in this case.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Bruce Timm. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebun Joseph

Hi, while one historian has come to that conclusion, it is not a settled matter on exactly what is being depicted in the statues and the implications for their removal or reinstatement. Again, I really feel that Joseph's article is not the place for this content, all that is relevant to her is her comments and the news articles that cite her opinion. Everything else really should go to the article on the Shelbourne itself, unless she makes a response in the media in the future. Smirkybec (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone in a highly paid and respected job, whose role should be in-part to know what is and is not a statue representing slavery in Ireland's capital, comes out to praise illegal actions carried out by a private company, then it is worth highlighting their lack of knowledge on the issue after attempted race baiting. In this case that person is her. She's already made her response known after appearing on RTE News. Her next response should be apologising for incorrectly assuming what the statues represented but that's not going to happen. What the article now leaves a reader with is half a story and the assumption that they are in fact statues representing slavery which even from the opinion piece you linked. This is about *her* response to the statues removal, not about the hotel itself. Yes, this context should be included there but being that she came out to speak on this publicly without any prior knowledge of what the statues actually represented, it should be included in the article on her. CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely then you should be citing her response on RTE then? Not an news article in which she is not mentioned at all? Smirkybec (talk) 17:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll give you that! I've updated the article with the RTE source which included a brief statement from her in the video and added more from her argument sourced from that article CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just noticed that the RTE source I added was already in that list so I'll remove the double posting I created of that CreativeFlesh93 (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Nicknack009 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]