User talk:Curivity

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curivity. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Whitney Woerz has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable singer lacking non-trivial, in-depth support.

WP:TOOSOON

.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Whitney Woerz is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Woerz until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curivity. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Curivity. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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.

Your edit is a violation of the following editing restriction on the Fox News page: "24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." You should self-revert immediately.

talk) 20:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Friendly comment. Your user page contains a url to a YouTube channel that you created that appears to contain uploaded videos in violation of copyright. I am a fan of some of Nightwish pieces. (Well, back when Tarja was a member.) But, I strongly suggest that you remove this url. Wikipedia respects intellectual property rights and needs to remain free of any possible legal ramifications. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at CNN 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

]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Curivity reported by User:Aquillion (Result: ). Thank you. Aquillion (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at CNN

WP:1RR. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Curivity. You sent me an email about this block, called 'Reviewing sourcing for certain articles'. Since no private information is involved, you should raise any concerns here on your talk page. This helps to ensure transparency. Our articles related to American politics have been a source of many disputes. If you are concerned about editor bias, you might like to read

WP:ARBAP2. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, here is the email I sent. I have already reviewed the article you linked.

---

Hello,

I was recently blocked by you for engaging in an edit war on CNN's article. I am writing to express my concerns for source material used on certain Wikipedia articles. I do not know if you have the time, desire, or if it is your place to review these materials, but I wanted to let you know anyhow.

Both Fox News and CNN's articles are using highly biased, and in my opinion, are not following NPOV standards. Within the history of these articles, and on the talk pages, you will see many criticisms of these article's sourcing from various editors including myself. I have recently began to reach out and engage in conversations with editors to present edits that will better help the articles follow NPOV and reliable sourcing guidelines Wikipedia has set before itself.

For instance, there are outwardly biased sourcing, opinionated sourcing, that are used in the majority space of the lead of Fox News. These sourcing, such as Media Matters for America, VOX, and others have openly expressed leftward bias. The problem is not that these are left-leaning per se, but that editors have reverted any changes to help explain the opposite viewpoints from conservative-leaning sourcing, stating these sourcings are not permissible because of the same bias. I have made attempts to reach out to editors on both ends on CNN's Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN), Fox News' Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News), NPOV noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard), Dispute resolution noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard), and talk pages of users. I have not received a response from an administrator as of yet. From what I understand, if sourced criticisms are allowed on one organization's article, but not another, this would fall under editor bias.

I hope you will look over the edits I've proposed and help me better understand what I did wrong as opposed to the sourcing on other (predominately conservative) pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CNN#Proposing_a_Restructuring_of_CNN_lead,_adding_%22content%22_section_with_criticisms_and_new_controversies

In addition, I want to express I am not trying to push my own personal biases upon the article's content, but I am highly concerned, as many others are, with the editor biases going on within these articles. I highly suggest you get involved to help us clear this up, otherwise I fear these issues will continue (this is not a threat on my part).

Thanks! Curivity

Curivity (talk) 22:28, January 10, 2020 (UTC)

---

Admins deal with behavior in their role as admins, not content. You are talking to a content issue which must go through the normal dispute resolution processes. If you fail to get the community to accept your view, the chances are that you should examine your own biases and/or study the appropriate guidelines a bit more. I would also suggest that you wait until your block has expired before any additional discussion, unless you are specifically discussing why you were blocked. Any other discussion could result in losing talk page access. Just my one cent. We were all new editors once. O3000 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I figured as much. I just wanted to let the administrator know, perhaps he could let someone else know about the problems here. I don't think it has anything to do with my biases, I think many people have raised issues with these articles in the past/present and helping to maintain Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral (political, social, etc.) source of information should, in my opinion, be everyone's concern, especially if you have the ability to explain why we're wrong here. I haven't seen very many constructive arguments on this issue within the talk pages of either article, it's just a back-and-fourth about one's personal political opinions. Curivity (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Threading

WP:TPG for more information and feel free to ask any question you may have. - MrX 🖋 11:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, I'm aware but I have been sloppy with this. I apologize! Curivity (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wasn't sure if you knew. - MrX 🖋 23:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Skyler White.jpg

Thanks for uploading

claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curivity&oldid=1141591682"