User talk:Samp4ngeles

Welcome!

Hello, Samp4ngeles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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! Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Samp4ngeles. You have new messages at Mark Arsten's talk page.
Message added 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles was accepted

Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Lugia2453 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A source to put for any one at the oscars

Well good luck editing, now always try to get a link to the Oscars official site. (IE here is a page I made last night for a visual effects artist of ET): Kenneth F. Smith I have links to the Oscar site as you see. I have made tons of new people the past few weeks, well good luck and have fun! Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Samp4ngeles. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Samp4ngeles. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Samp4ngeles. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)

Vandalism is prohibited

Hello, I'm Xenagoras. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tulsi Gabbard have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Xenagoras (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

Template:Z33 - MrX 🖋 12:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Tulsi Gabbard 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. - MrX 🖋 12:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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:Samp4ngeles reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - MrX 🖋 12:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Samp4ngeles. You've been warned as the result of this complaint. For details see the closure at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you make any more reverts regarding the spelling of Tulsi Gabbard's first name unless you have obtained a prior consensus on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Please work to develop consensus for BLP info in articles

Hi Samp4ngeles. Please work on the article talk pages to gain the required consensus for inclusion of biographical information within Science of Identity Foundation and Mike Gabbard.

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, you need to stop edit-warring and work collaboratively with others on the article talk pages to find consensus. Taking disputed material from one article and incorporating it into another is not a good approach. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Science of Identity Foundation

Do you think you could respond on the talk page before reverting. Your source is supposed to support the first sentence of the article which reads, "The Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) is a socially conservative religious organization based in Hawaii, United States, founded by Kris "Chris" Butler (also known as Jagad Guru Siddhaswarupananda Paramahamsa, Siddha Swarup Ananda Goswami, Paramahamsa, and Sai Young) in 1977." Nothing in the 1970 article supports any of those assertions, nor could it since events cannot be recorded before they happen. TFD (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That specific source simply references names used by Butler, and it is significant given that it was the first RS mention his following. Most of the other items in the first sentence were there before the addition of this source but can be supported by the addition of other, more recent RS. I am happy to add those within the next day, if others don't add them first.TFD (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources you provide say who the founders of the foundation were. Is there any particular reason you are interested in this group? If you are a member, you should report a COI. TFD (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Signing comments

Please see Wikipedia:Signatures on how to sign comments. The signatures of your comments here and here are wrong, pointing to or naming the editor you are responding to, instead of your own user page and user name.

(Also, you appear to have misunderstood my comment here as directed at you - rather, as can be seen from the indentation, it was a reply to the comment right above by TFD/The Four Deuces dated 05:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC).)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mike Gabbard

As info, the edit you changed on Mike Gabbard's page was made by a Sockpuppet for Puppetmaster ContentEditman. The user has been warned in the past for edit Warring and reported for both edit Warring and Sockpuppetry. If the edit Warring continues on that page you may wish to consider additional reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC00:14D0:19B1:D5BB:25A4:6AA3 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Do you think you could respond to the comments of other editors about your edits on the talk page? TFD (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you would use a source, "SARS travel warning to Toronto lifted", that does not mention Hawaii or Gabbard for a claim that Gabbard supported quarantine of patients with symptoms of SARS in Hawaii? TFD (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that. Will correct the link. It should be [1] ("State remains on watch for potential SARS cases").Samp4ngeles (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.

Template:Z33 TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Tulsi Gabbard 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.

Note that this article is under arbitration sanctions and has a one revert rule. Please revert your edit or I will report your actions to arbitration enforcement. I note you have already been warned for edit-warring.

Also, you should discuss differences on the talk page rather than in edit summaries.

TFD (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. You're asking that I reverse an edit based on your factually-incorrect reasoning that contradicts a source you cited? Please. Go read your source again before wasting anyone's time with this.Samp4ngeles (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I reported your edit-warring to the 3RR noticeboard and you may reply here. TFD (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I posted a reply to your comments on the talk page. You need to distinguish between (1) isolation of persons with symptoms of SARS and (2) quarantine of contacts of personas with symptoms of SARS who have no symptoms themselves. Both Gabbard and the CDC supported the first but not the second. Quarantine was however carried out in Toronto, where the disease was more widespread. It could be that the source of your confusion is that the Hawaii Advertiser article incorrectly uses the term quarantine, when it is referring to isolation. Isolation refers to the segregation of individuals with symptoms, while quarantine refers to the segregation of persons without symptoms but have had contact with persons with symptoms. TFD (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever else, if you are going to continue to reinstate this change, please join the discussion on the article talk page. Making changes and then failing to discuss them when there is dispute is likely to be seen as WP:Disruptive editing, and you've made the change often enough that you can just brush it off. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Um sorry I meant 'can't just brush it off' Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring at Tulsi Gabbard

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

for violating WP:1RR at Tulsi Gabbard. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. There is a broader concern that you may not be able to edit neutrally on the topic of Tulsi Gabbard, but that's not for discussion here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring again

I notice that you have performed two reverts on the article Tulsi Gabbard in a 24 hour period, which is in violation of 1RR. Please self-revert or I will report this matter to arbitration enforcement. TFD (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you need to count it again. It was only one revert, of the @Xenagoras revert. If you notice, I went on to explain the revert in further by creating a new topic in Talk. That should eliminate any confusion. This is not "edit warring," but I would perhaps agree with you if I were to revert it a second time. Samp4ngeles (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Let me do the counting for you. This was your first removal of the content in question: [2] and that was the second removal of the same content one hour later: [3]. You also claimed WP:OWNERSHIP of that content. [4] Afterwards you "justified" your edits via original research that contained damaging the reputation of the WP:BLP's subject [5]. And you disputed the reliability of apparently good sources [6]. Xenagoras (talk) 03:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)