User talk:ThirstCurfew

Your submission at Articles for creation: KlowdTV (December 19)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:KlowdTV and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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 get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: KlowdTV (March 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment they left was:

Hello and thanks for working at this but this will still need any further available sources focusing with in-depth third-party coverage overall.

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:KlowdTV and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
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.

SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to R. Kelly, you may be blocked from editing. - AffeL (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AffeLTo categorize those edits as 'disruptive' is ridiculous: I moved two sections around and deleted nothing. The original article made zero mention of the dozens and dozens of lawsuits filed against Kelly for statutory rape. It is clearly biased and reads like a fanzine. Are you somehow disputing these public records? The article was more complete and accurate after my additions. - ThirstCurfew (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does in the R. Kelly#Legal issues section.. about the allegations. Your edits are disruptive and obvious vandalism. Since you are a beginner:

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. - AffeL (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does *not* cover the dozens of lawsuits filed against Kelly for statutory rape; it only covers the one case in question with the videotape. You are flat out wrong. Before you remove my edit, I'd like you to point to at least one fact that I quoted in there that is not a matter of public record. Are you somehow suggesting that we shouldn't talk about the dozens of other alleged incidients of abuse, suicide attempts, and out-of-court settlements because we already talked about JUST ONE of them here already?

We will just be repeating our self. And if we would cover those allegation, then it would go on the R. Kelly#Legal issues section in the same order. What you did, by changing the orders and adding "sexual predator" to the lead and so on is vandalism. If you want to see how a Wikipedia:Featured articles of another famouse person with same legal history look at: Michael Jackson. That's how articles should be written. Not like the obvious hateful edits you made. - AffeL (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]