User talk:Nyaja Aibhlinn
June 2018
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Patricia Kennealy-Morrison are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Miss Kennealy's memoir is included in her page but if a question comes up that might considered a little thorny the question is simply dismissed? Care to provide an explanation as to why you flat-out reject any information that doesn't serve Kennealy's interests? Pamela Courson-Morrison is treated with a dismissive tone on Jim Morrison's page and yet Kennealy's claims were allowed to be included on that page.
Guess there is no point in my asking why Miss Kennealy felt the need to track down Tandy Martin-Brody, an former girlfriend of Jim Morrison's when he was a young teen and then include the picture in her first memoir. (Was that supposed to prove something? Did she REALLY leave the picture on Jim Morrison's windshield just to "make him crazy"?)
Interesting. I'll have to do some investigating.
Thank you for your warm and friendly welcome but I'll take your response to mean that anything Miss Kennealy does care to discuss is simply not allowed. Very strange policy for a site like Wikipedia, a site that depends on the financial support of people who utilize it.
"Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" - I thought for sure that such a well-known publication like 'No One Here Get's Out Alive' and Miss Kennealy's statements contained in it would certainly be considered "verifiable". So many issues with this page and this topic. The only "sources" allowed are those written by and approved by Miss Kennealy herself.
So you removed the reference to the abortion story Miss Kennealy willingly shared with the public on more than one occasion, not just in her first memoir, that you personally answered when the topic of Miss Kennealy's conversation with Pamela Courson-Morrison was brought up. Wow. It would appear that you really do like to control the narrative when it comes to Miss Kennealy. I'd ask you to explain why, but I'm sure I wouldn't get an answer.
Your edit request
[edit]Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. I moved your edit request to Talk:Jim Morrison, the article's talk page. Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is only for requesting articles to be protected, not for submitting edit requests to protected articles. Thanks. Minima© (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Nyaja Aibhlinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #21830 was submitted on Jun 16, 2018 04:23:43. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- According to your e-mail to me, the reason you created Nyaja Aibhlinn is because you lost your login infomation for your former account, JDMAVkwd (talk · contribs · count). What you should have done after creating the second account was to disclose that information on both the Nyaja Aibhlinn and JDMAVkwd userpages. However, I will assume that you were ignorant of the necessity of doing that. Based on your representations, your second account should not be considered a sock of the first. I am therefore going to unblock this account. I am going to leave the first account blocked as you can no longer use it and there's no reason for you to have two accounts, but I will remove the sock tags from both userpages.
- I will also reluctantly and on procedural grounds only reinstate your case request at ArbCom. Your apparent purpose on being here is to set the record straight about various things having to do with the personal lives of Jim Morrison and Patricia Kennealy-Morrison. Your case request was a malformed (did not follow procedural requirements) wall of text and will likely be rejected by a Committee clerk. You have left other similar walls of text in other forums. You have fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy, even though you toss about such words as verified and neutral. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to offer your own opinions on what happened in the 1960s and 70s. You also have misinterpreted other editors' actions, e.g., thinking that CorbieVreccan "locked" an article when in fact it was another administrator who locked the article. For all these reasons, I doubt you will be permitted to remain at Wikipedia if you persist in your present approach.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Case request removed
[edit]Dear Nyaja Aibhlinn,
I would like to inform you that I have removed your arbitration request as malformed. Please read thoroughly the guide to arbitration and if you still believe that your request is suitable for arbitration, fill in this template accordingly.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Nyaja Aibhlinn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Bbb23, I am genuinely confused. I added the article to Jim Morrison's "Talk" as an FYI, something to watch for as far as news about Jim Morrison, I thought the Talk page was the appropriate place for it, if it is not I will take it down. I did not try to add it to Jim Morrison's page, I just put it out there as an interesting little bit of news. Can you please clarify what I did wrong? Nyaja Aibhlinn (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The block is valid, and you've only confirmed that it is necessary. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- You moved CorbieVreccan's Talk page to a fictious user's Talk page named Jim Morrison. You already demonstrated that you have nothing positive to contribute to this project, but this last stunt confirmed your inability to edit constructively.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|Bbb23 - I intended to move the article not the page, I apologize. This was not a "stunt" but given what has been going on over the past few days I can understand why you thought it was. Well, we tried to make it work and I bid you and Wikipedia farewell. This has been a very eye-opening experience. VERY eye-opening. I want to sign off with something nice but I just can't bring myself to do it. So long "Bbb23", hope your outlook on life improves.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.