UltimaHolyFlare
License tagging for File:JTCrsoCamp-BookvilleAug09.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:JTCrsoCamp-BookvilleAug09.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
September 2017
edit
Your recent editing history at Lauren Book shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC) It is obvious Wikipedia has taken sides here. I had taken hours out of my time to share ethical concerns from a local politician using numerous legitimate media concerns, yet when I reported vandalism, I have become wrongfully targeted by people with an agenda. It is obvious there is a bias at play at deleting relevant information on this site.UltimaHolyFlare (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- @UltimaHolyFlare:, complain about agendas and bias all you want, but Wikipedia is not the place for you to "share your concerns". Neither is Wikipedia a bastion of free speech protected by the First Amendment. (I know you didn't say that but I'm trying to help you by anticipating some common arguments.) Wikipedia is not some town square where your can say what you like. Wikipedia is a private web site owned by the Wikimedia Foundation and you agreed to follow their rules when you created your account, and two of the rules are not to violate the BLP policy and not to edit war. Please remove your most recent edits or you will be reported and likely blocked. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I have reported Mubogshu before he reported me. First off, I didn't violate any rules. Maybe you should talk to Mubogshu about that. I shared legitimate news articles that were wholesale removed. I have indeed followed the rules and reported Mubogshu for vandalism, and it is obvious you are taking sides. Lauren Book is a public figure who has engaged in a number of activities that have been reported in mainstream media outlets that were the basis for the "controversies" section. I have placed "controversies" sections on other figures with little fanfare because each resource has verified as legitimate media outlets. So no, I will not undo my revisions. What I have written is legitimate information verified by media resources, which is pretty much what is expected of Wikipedia. This isn't "saying what I like" but sharing legitimate ethical concerns of a public figure.UltimaHolyFlare (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:VD content disputes are not vandalism, also you should read WP:BRD and WP:NPOV. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
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:UltimaHolyFlare reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
edit
A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Lauren Book
editPlease read this carefully regarding the information you are continuously attempting to add at Lauren Book: (from WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE)
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Seek consensus at the talk page before continuing to add it to the article. Ignoring the request of multiple editors will only get you blocked. Nihlus 03:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
February 2019
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
UltimaHolyFlare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Muboshgu is clearly engaging in targeted harassment; is clearly sabotaging my contributions and acting in an abusive manner towards me. He repeatedly targeted my posts not because they were inaccurate but because he clearly has a personal issue with me and my subject matter of interest. I have only edited a handful of articles over the years but every post had the proper references from mainstream media sources. Muboshgu obviously disagrees with the subject matter even though other contributors have posted similar sections regarding controversies exist on other celebrity pages. He edited out even minor fixes to pages that I made out of spite. Muboshgu should be the one suspended for abusing his administrative privileges. I'll be more than happy to speak to a real live person and provide proof that it is Muboshgu and not me that is sabotaging the pages. Muboshgu, My edits were proper edits complete with proper resources. You just decided you did not like them so you erased them based on YOUR PERSONAL opinion. It is obvious you have animus against me because of my selected subject matte. The Wikipedia rules state that having a focal point is not reason enough to accuse someone of not contributing. It is clear to me you have a personal problem and clearly abusing your admin privileges. You should be the one banned from future editing. I'd like to hear what your real reason for the edits. I suspect that you, a person with a special interest in baseball and focusing on baseball articles, don't typically watch articles about a freshman state senator unless that was a deeper reason behind it.Below is the post Muboshgu keeps trying to censor
Decline reason:
You clearly have a goal with your edits, and it isn't to improve this encyclopedia. Muboshgu was quite correct to block you. I am declining this request. Once you have read WP:BLP, explain why your edits were improper, and tell what you will edit about instead of your current chosen subject, an unblock can be considered- you will have to use UTRS to make your request. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2019 (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 should've been blocked when you started this activity in August-September 2017. You're clearly engaging in long-term abuse, periodically coming back to revandalize the same articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
(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.
As you persisted in adding your BLP violation to this page, I have removed your talk page access. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)