User talk:Exposed101

Speedy deletion nomination of List of closeted gay people

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Ish dar ian 23:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from List of closeted gay people, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Ish dar ian 23:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Joe Sugg. Thank you. Ish dar ian 23:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Exposed101, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. We're so glad you're here! 23:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)LordFixit (talk)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tutelary. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Joe Sugg because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tutelary (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, Exposed101. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Speedy deletion nomination of Exposed101

Hello Exposed101,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Exposed101 for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ish dar ian 00:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Sugg. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Sugg, you may be blocked from editing. Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Sugg. Tutelary (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Exposed101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have taken the disagreement to the talkpage, why should I be blocked? I am a new user not yet aware of all the polycies and about “reliable source”Exposed101 (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not buying that. It seems like you're only here to cause trouble, which doesn't make me want to unblock you. [stwalkerster|talk] 01:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 were made aware of our policies at the top of this page, explicitly. You continued edit warring to include material linking to a revenge site in a biography of a living person. You then began taggin other editors' user pages for deletion. I see no indication that you understand the problem at this point. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kuru you have removed the record of 18 edits at Joe Sugg for being “Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material'

what a surprise you think homosexuality is insulting degrading or offensive you are from texas where homosexuality was illegal until 2003. wtf? Take a look at this btw http://gigaom.com/2012/06/01/calling-someone-gay-no-longer-slander-says-new-york-court/ Exposed101 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you're still confused about the problem with your edits, I do indeed consider linking to user-created revenge sites as offensive. Kuru (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drowninginlimbo

User:Drowninginlimbo: I notice you have proposed to remove my discussion at the Joe Sugg talk page, calling it “libel” Please take a look at this http://gigaom.com/2012/06/01/calling-someone-gay-no-longer-slander-says-new-york-court/ Exposed101 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting read. However, listing somebody on Wikipedia as gay when there is no evidence to support this would still be libel Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read it? It is NOT libel to state someone is gay, especially when you can hold up evidence of them having oral sex with another man.

I did read it. There is a difference between saying somebody is gay and publishing something that states that they are. If you edit something like that into a Wikipedia article, the website is potentially open to lawsuits. Your evidence holds about as much weight as a porn parody Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It IS NOT libel to say or publish something that says someone is gay. Are you saying the photos of Joe Sugg having sex with another male are a 'parody' or impling they are not realExposed101 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if they are real or not. The pictures themselves aren't sufficient proof as they could be easily faked. I strongly recommend you give up on this, I don't know what inspired your actions but you are wasting your time Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drowninginlimbo, may I redirect you to a rather useful essay called WP:DENY? I think it's quite useful for this occasion.

Thank you, that is probably relevant to a few of my encounters with vandals. I get carried away Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Exposed101 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have only been registered for a few hours. I promise if I am given a second chance, I will try to learn more about what is and is not allowed. I will edit more construcitvley and seek to discus changes with other users first. Please give me another chance Exposed101 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.