User talk:OnsceneBoos

Welcome

Hello, OnsceneBoos, 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 facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

This is OnsceneBoos's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Trondheimsporten (January 15)

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 submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and 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:

Requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources - even if it was the tallest it would need more to show notability. A forth tallest 15 floor office sounds very un-notable

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Trondheimsporten and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Trondheimsporten, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OnsceneBoos! Having an article 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) 19:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Trondheimsporten

Hello, OnsceneBoos. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Trondheimsporten".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabletop Simulator

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Tabletop Simulator, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Don Cuan (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

In regards to this - I wasn't in any way. shape or form citing AGF aggressively, I reverted you in completely good faith so much so that I had added "AGF" despite "reverting good faith edits" already being included.....,
Please don't assume bad faith especially when bad faith wasn't given, I would kindly suggest you read WP:Assume bad faith,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop leaving borderline threatening messages on my talk page, and also please stop adding extremely biased material to the article. There has been no consensus about inclusion on the talk page discussion. Next time you either leave personal attacks on my talk page or add POV/OR to the article, I'll ask an admin to intervene/take you to ANI. I won't be responding to comments here, this is just to let you know. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

What the actual F have you been smoking? "Borderline threatening messages"? Must be the dumbest thing I have ever heard another human utter.

OnsceneBoos (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Amber Heard 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claim I am engaged in an edit war when all I do is add pertinent and relevant information about the ongoing abuse case against Amber Heard, yet you make no mentions of the user/s that revert my edits, censoring information. Ive provided sources for each of my edits and have only reverted the reverts other users have done on my editing.

OnsceneBoos (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been trying to add this same disputed content to Amber Heard for days. If you restore it again without getting consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked from editing without further warning.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to I know if a consensus has been reached? How to I deal with users trying to stonewall a consensus being formed? OnsceneBoos (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will know that consensus has been reached when the majority of editors participating on the talk page (and the related discussion at WP:BLP/N) agree with the proposed changes and editors are no longer reverting your edit to the article. Disagreeing with your proposed change is not stonewalling.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I thought it worked, but based on the fact that we are 5+ users in agreement that the information about Amber abusing Depp should be added and one against, the one against (TrueHeartSusie3) is the one stonewalling and reverting additions to the article. Must be different rules for females perhaps. OnsceneBoos (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A handful of throw away accounts created solely to give the appearance of false consensus is irrelevant. The discussion needs to include editors who can actually demonstrate some understanding of our most basic policies regarding living persons, sourcing, and POV in order for consensus to be determined. You must stop personally attacking editors who disagree with you as sexist. Work out the content issues at BLP/N.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A handful of throw away accounts created solely to give the appearance of false consensus is irrelevant." Wow, it must be great living in such a simple world, where you can dismiss any opinion you dont like as "fake". You know who else keeps reaming about "fake news"? OnsceneBoos (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More and more when I see you unable to resist this "sexism" angle of attack I am thinking this is somehow men's rights activism related. Since you have repeatedly accused others of POV I don't think it's wrong to point out what yours sounds like. You're telling on yourself. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND or place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that it is okay to remove all mentions and evidence of Amber's abuse of Depp? Also, please refrain from personal attacks simply because you dont believe in equal rights for men and women. OnsceneBoos (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You literally cannot stop doing it. How do you know what exactly I think about men's rights or equal rights? I didn't even say I disagreed with your edits. It's not bias that is going to keep you from influencing the article it is your own way of approaching things. Let people who know about balancing BLP articles give input on how it should be handled. It's simple. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. These edits are not acceptable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Any more incivility and you will be blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What fucking personal attacks? OnsceneBoos (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story, bros! OnsceneBoos (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per my warning, and your responses, you are now blocked indefinitely for incivility personal attacks, and showing no signs of being here to create an encyclopedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]