User talk:Ameba mcare

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ameba mcare, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JNW (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JNW. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. JNW (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research 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. Thank you. JNW (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Hello, Ameba mcare. 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 need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
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. JNW (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. JNW (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be persistent is copying content from a source that is not reliable, about a picture without any credible documentation, based on original research. Such content will not be accepted in an encyclopedia. Please use the article talk page to explain which reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE, support your contentions. JNW (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. JNW (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed . But sir "VERSION" literally as well as technically is meant for any interpretation of one matter or subject[ Here it is the artwork] of one creative work or any making of any creator from a particular view point something different from others of the same type of previous one. that is recast from original creative work. In this view it is self explanatory that VERSION meant for change in/ or correction made from the previous one.No matter of MEDIUM/MEDIA the artwork created. Here Munch created various paintings of same Madonna in number of different styles. say Initially canvas. then tempera then wood cut then papyrus board then litho print even in the litho prints itself Munch made so many corrections AND VARRIATIONS in every corrected version if we keenly watch the litho prints we may be able to differentiate the corrections made by Munch in the litho prints every time he made. Another thing is Munch was a multi versatile art personality who was keep on creating one particular theme of painting in various MEDIAS [pL NOTE" MEDIUMS" not Versions ] such as canvas painting, tempera, woodcut and Mural decoration, framed impression, litho and even he tried stone cut works etc;for one particular art theme. Hence generally if we REGISTER OR ARCHIVE one particular historical facts in an article like wiki to indicate any version of one creative work it should be inclusive of all MEDIAS and MEDIUMS whether it is canvas or litho that does not matter. That is why the US Government's National Art gallery Publication mentioned eight versions[both Paints and Prints] of Madonna from the year 1892 to 1914[ including the initial Nude Madonna Munch exhibited for the first time. The current final version 1922 has been not calculated as this master piece is under AUTHENTICATION PROCESS. Jonbod has already pointed only his view of calculating the 'VERSIONS' but., THE GLOBALLY agreed calculation of VERSIONS for one particular creative work is differnt as said above. Do you agree?--Ameba mcare (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again assuming I am permitted to do some edit talk page... All corrections made ok But, the year of creations of Madonna os not 1892-1895 instead it is 1892-1914 Am I correct?--Ameba mcare (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

Even the full reliable resources presented for confirming the content what was edited it shall be deeply analysed the research of edited contents whether the entire research is true or not, Instead it is unfair to block editing. Kindly reconsider it Ameba mcare (talk) 9:50 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:02, 26 February 2013 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Time limit lapsedAmeba mcare (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. The block has expired. You are free to edit, but repeating your previous actions will likely get you blocked again. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 18:12, 21 March 2013 (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.

Zorpia[edit]

Hi, it seems that you are trying to send me a message via Zorpia. I cannot receive it because, for some reason, it will not accept by email address as "valid". If you wish to send me a message just send an ordinary email as you have done in the past. Paul B (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]